Work Integration Social Enterprises in the United States: Operating at the Nexus of Public Policy, Markets, and Community

Abstract

Work integration social enterprises (WISEs) in the United States represent a market based approach for workforce development and labor market integration that offer employment and training opportunities as well as bridges to the mainstream labor market. Historically developed to create separate spaces of work for populations considered less able to compete in mainstream labor markets, such as people with physical and developmental disabilities, as this article will show, WISEs have evolved to target other disadvantaged and marginalized communities such as individuals suffering from homelessness, youth disconnected from both school and labor markets, formerly incarcerated individuals seeking reentry into employment, and welfare recipients required to work for benefits or as benefits are timed out. This article traces the historic evolution of the WISE sector. The review highlights the ways in which the organizational model has been adapted in response to shifting social constructions about appropriate level of integration and employment norms for disadvantaged groups as well as the changing nature of jobs in the entry level labor market. Further, this paper illustrates that newer (non-disability related) WISE organizational models have different resource generation strategies compared to the older WISE models, may be more exposed to market forces in their social business niches, and must contend with the increased vulnerabilities faced by workers in an era of welfare safety net erosion.

Donors’ Responses to Profit Incentives in the Social Sector: The Entrepreneurial Orientation Reward and the Profit Penalty

“…For example, Greyston Bakery in New York, which provides job training and employment through its bakery, and D.C. Central Kitchen in Washington, DC, which provides similar job training and experience through multiple food-related social business ventures, engage service recipients directly in the work of a social business and are representative of organizations in this analysis. Additional examples can be found in Cooney (2016), Cooney et al (2016), andDunn et al (2016). However, commonly recognized for-profit social enterprises, such as Toms Shoes, that use a profit-based, market-driven business to finance a separate socially-motivated program do not fit this definition of social enterprise because they do not satisfy the test for tax-exempt status.…”

Do Benefit Corporations Represent a Policy Threat to Nonprofits?

“…An interesting Maryland example is the Oliver Grayson Holding benefit LLC, established to structure financing of a multi-use real estate development that would also house a National LGBT Museum (BusinessWire 2012). Furthermore, social enterprises that utilize actual businesses to train or rehabilitate their clients, variously referred to as social purpose (Young, Salamon, and Grinsfelder 2012) or work integration enterprises (Cooney 2016) might be another case in point. One nationally-prominent example of this type of social enterprise, the Greyston Bakery, was the first BC to register in New York in 2012.…”

Understanding regional growth of social enterprises: the art of the state

“…The market is believed to play a key role in social enterprise development (Cooney, 2016; Hulgård, 2011; Joerges and Rödl, 2004; Lee and Chandra, 2020; Šmejkal and Šaroch, 2015). The “hybrid” nature of social enterprises points to their integration of social missions with market-based activities (Ebrahim et al ., 2014; Evers and Laville, 2004; Evers, 2005; Minkoff, 2002).…”