Equity,Empowerment,and Social Justice: Social Entrepreneurship for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals

Abstract

The high incarceration rate and systemic racism in the United States, along with entrenched social barriers, highlight the need for creative solutions to help formerly incarcerated individuals (FIIs) reintegrate successfully. This paper highlights social entrepreneurial ventures (SEVs) as powerful agents of social change, underscoring the significance of holistic approaches in successful reentry and transformation of FIIs. We delve into the potential of SEVs as catalysts for social justice within the critical HRD (CHRD) framework, examining SEV’s role in advancing learning, challenging power dynamics, empowering marginalized communities, and propelling grassroots-led social change. In doing so, we also emphasize the significance of experiential learning and dialog in cultivating collective knowledge and action within these social movements. We analyze the structural, organizational, and individual factors that demonstrate how HRD and social entrepreneurship complement and broaden modes of engagement. Ultimately, we highlight the promising synergy between SEVs and the CHRD perspective, presenting a transformative approach for both HRD scholars and practitioners and argue that by embracing the values of empowerment, equity, and social justice, HRD can play a pivotal role in fostering more inclusive, equitable, and empowering organizational landscapes.

Human resource development (HRD) has frequently been conceived as a rational, performative, and utilitarian field that undermines individuals whose lifestyles, commitments, and orientations are incongruous with such a narrow perspective (Bierema & Callahan, 2014). This conceptualization portrays HRD as detached from broader communal associations, interpersonal connections, or interdependencies, thereby necessitating the application of critical ideologies to contest established “truths” and the prevailing status quo. Sociopolitical concerns are, however, inseparable from scholarly pursuits, professional domains as well as education (Pleasant, 2017). Rather than disassociating from these concerns, cultivating an awareness of, and engaging critically with urgent socio-political, socio-cultural, and socio-economic challenges can prove to be a fruitful avenue for advancing more meaningful HRD. HRD must unequivocally acknowledge its ethical duty to confront injustice within and outside of organizations (Byrd, 2018). Through the adoption of a more discerning ideological lens, HRD can exploit opportunities to shape policies and practices that contribute to the cause of social justice.

The emergence of Critical HRD (CHRD) signifies a critical appraisal of prevailing paradigms governing the scope and purpose of HRD endeavors aimed at advancing human progress. CHRD is intricately shaped by overarching societal plight, where socio-political and economic ideologies exert considerable influence over organizational policies, practices, and experiences (Collins & Callahan, 2023). CHRD scholarship, practitioners, and praxis emphasize advancement of organizational parity, diversity, and inclusivity (Acker, 2006) that engenders inclusive pedagogical frameworks and nuanced theoretical constructs exposing social oppression leading to the enactment of moral agency. CHRD seeks to reconfigure the discourse around organizational paradigms which have been ingrained with hegemonic, masculine, productivist, and capitalist ideologies (Collins & Callahan, 2023). The essence of CHRD extends toward a comprehensive comprehension of both the individual and societal dimensions, thereby necessitating a broader theoretical foundation for comprehending the multifaceted realm of HRD (Sinnicks, 2023). Rooted in the core principle that amplifying the voices of the oppressed effectively diminishes the power held by oppressors (Sambrook, 2008), CHRD is fundamentally concerned with the emancipation of humanity (Lawless et al., 2012). Thus, equity and empowerment emerge as pivotal principles and guiding tenets within the realm of CHRD, accentuating its intrinsic social orientation.

CHRD has witnessed noteworthy advancements in the integration of a social justice perspective; nevertheless, Bierema (2020) highlights a persisting need to raise awareness of the problems associated with social inequalities within HRD scholarship. In line with CHRD goals, Bierema (2020) encourages HRD scholars to embark on an imaginative reinterpretation of organizational constructs and to undertake research endeavors that unflinchingly confront subjects of universal concern—such as diversity, inclusivity, social equity, organizational well-being, human sustenance, and the transformative overhaul of inequitable systems. Thus, it is incumbent upon HRD to assert deeper learning and knowledge pertaining to social justice, necessitating a candid reckoning with the sociohistorical injustices that have precipitated prevailing circumstances and, in turn, force proactive measures in the pursuit of social justice (Byrd & Scott, 2010; Collins & Callahan, 2023). Within such a framework, CHRD can assume a catalytic role as a conduit for transformative change and as an advocate for marginalized segments of society (Jacobson et al., 2015).

One way to incorporate social justice perspective is to work collaboratively to create positive change against social oppression faced by marginalized communities. We contend that social entrepreneurial ventures (SEVs) embody all the characteristics that CHRD aspires scholars and practitioners toward “doing” their work differently by finding new ways of organizing, relating, learning, changing (Bierema & Callahan, 2014), and advocating (Collins et al., 2015). SEVs are defined as high-impact ventures that address long-standing socio-environmental problems, focus on long-term collaborative community capacity building, rely on collective wisdom and experience, foster the creation of knowledge and networks, and facilitate sustained positive social change (Trivedi & Stokols, 2011). The work of SEVs is fundamentally grounded in humanistic and egalitarian practices oriented toward action that aims to address unfair inequities and challenge the status quo at the institutional level (Fenwick, 2014). SEVs are characterized by stakeholder democracy where they must benefit the community, have group objectives and shared aims, and decision-making power is more distributed and not based on capital ownership (Bull, 2008). SEVs are emblematic of the liminal spaces envisioned by Bierema and Callahan (2014) as they serve marginalized communities often at the intersectionality of gender, race, and/or class. They serve as spaces of empowerment, encouraging radical cognitive shifts, redistributing power dynamics, facilitating resource sharing, and cultivating policies and procedures that facilitate learning and knowledge dissemination, thus engendering knowledge networks (Trivedi, 2013).

In this paper, we look at SEVs engaged in empowering formerly incarcerated individuals (FIIs). We delve into the reasons behind their effectiveness in lowering recidivism rates and examine how they actively disrupt established power dynamics to foster beneficial societal transformations. The United States has the highest incarceration rate of 629 people per 100,000 in the world. This rate has skyrocketed in past decades as the prison population was just 200,000 in 1972 (Fair & Walmsley, 2021). The United States is also most obsessed with punitive measures for dealing with crime (Sered, 2019) with aggressive policing, a court system with fewer diversion programs, crowded jails and prisons, and surveillance and monitoring rather than providing supportive services (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2015). In addition, its criminal justice system is plagued with systematic racism with Black Americans five times more likely to be incarcerated than their counterparts (Wagner & Kopf, 2015). Some have argued that the criminal justice system of the US resembles more of a management solution to the problemed population rather than serving as an institution for justice (Miller, 2021; Sered, 2019). Over 95% of all court cases result in a plea deal. Hence, more than 90% of incarcerated people reenter society at some point in time as formerly incarcerated individuals (FIIs; James, 2014). Once out, they face several institutional and structural barriers that severely restrict their ability to gain access to basic necessities for survival creating social and psychological isolation and pushing them into the dark world that they are trying to escape. Many reentry programs struggle to effectively reduce recidivism because they possess significant shortcomings in both their content and delivery methods. The primary reasons for their lack of success include their failure to address the underlying causes of recidivism (such as neglecting to target criminogenic factors that influence likelihood of engaging in criminal or delinquent behavior, such as pro-criminal attitudes, poor performance at work or school, and low number of or quality of interpersonal relationships), their inability to provide tailored support that meets the specific needs of individuals, their untimely provision of assistance upon release, their insufficient program duration and ongoing support, and their failure to maintain fidelity in program implementation (Petrich et al., 2022).

Social entrepreneurship presents a unique avenue through which FIIs can address the voids created by the prevailing institutional and societal structures and the reentry programs in the United States. By training FIIs in entrepreneurship as a career path, SEVs not only serve as a conduit for addressing and reforming the social injustices they confront but also as a more profound alternative for combating recidivism. Within this context, social entrepreneurial ventures (SEVs) emerge as effective agents in diminishing the recidivism rate. Adopting a holistic approach enables SEVs to craft an alternative system that empowers FIIs to combat the inequities in the labor market. The success of SEVs hinges upon their recognition of the dualistic nature of reintegration, requiring both internal and external transformation for FIIs. The internal transformation necessitates FIIs to cultivate mental resilience, marked by introspection, the acknowledgment of past actions, the confrontation of guilt and shame, and the acquisition of new behavioral patterns. The external transition involves acquisition of social skills, developing confidence, and rebuilding societal trust. This endows FIIs with the agency to transcend the confines of structural constraints, thus defying the socially imposed identity and achieving successful assimilation into mainstream society. Consequently, SEVs evolve into catalysts of societal transformation and epicenters of novel knowledge formation, through their active participation in social initiatives and their simultaneous subversion of existing power dynamics that perpetuate the cycle of oppression. SEVs inherently grasp that the effective resolution of deeply entrenched social issues necessitates multifaceted, multi-level, and multi-modal engagement sustained over a considerable temporal span (Trivedi, 2013). The success of SEVs is rooted in their all-encompassing inclusivity, which harmonizes stakeholders toward the realization of the organization’s overarching social mission. Stakeholders’ value-added participation is pivotal in collective social action.

In developing these arguments, we first explain the forces leading to high incarceration rate in the United States and how systematic racism populates the country’s prison system. Subsequently, our analysis examines the structural impediments, policies, and regulations that dictate the trajectory of formerly incarcerated individuals, robbing them of their fundamental human dignity and compelling them to subsist on societal benevolence. We then divulge the mechanisms through which recidivism is perpetuated, notably through discriminatory employment practices. Paradoxically, these discriminatory practices propel entrepreneurship into the sphere of career development for FIIs. Drawing upon the specific illustrations of SEVs such as the Delancey Street Foundation (DSF) and the Prison Entrepreneurship Program (PEP), we illustrate how these entities serve as vehicles for individual, organizational, and societal transformation while exploring the process of empowerment. Finally, we discuss the implications for HRD, specifically emphasizing the pivotal role SEVs can play in aligning HRD practices with a resolute social justice orientation.

The U.S. Criminal Justice System

The United States has 5% of the world’s population but is home to 25% of the global prison population (Kluckow & Zeng, 2022). With over 1.69 million people incarcerated in 2020, the US has the world’s largest prison population in federal, state, local, and tribal systems. Ten million people are admitted to jail in the United States every year (Kluckow & Zeng, 2022). Of those, only a small number around 100,000 are convicted (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022). Issues that drive prison population growth are the over-criminalization of drug use, private prisons, and low-paid or unpaid prison labor. Despite reforms, drug offenses are a defining characteristic of the federal system (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022). This high incarceration rate is more than five times compared to other developed economies such as the United Kingdom (Widra & Herring, 2021). Still, the number of individuals incarcerated is a significant reduction from the yearly average of two million from the proceeding four decades. The reduction is not a consequence of any permanent policy change. Instead, the reduction in the prison population is the result of COVID-19 pandemic-related slowdowns with a 40% drop in prison admission, court delays, and the temporary suspension of transfers from local jails. With the COVID-19 pandemic slowing down, the prison population is already seeing a rise to pre-pandemic levels (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022).

Additionally, there is significant evidence pointing to the fact that there is systematic racism in the United States criminal justice system (Balko, 2020; Miller et al., 2018; Sawyer, 2020). In the United States, the prison population is overwhelmingly Black (40%), and over 84% of individuals are poor with half having no income at all. Black Americans are five times more likely to be incarcerated than white Americans and get a lengthier sentence for the same crimes (Wagner & Kopf, 2015). One study found that 49% of Black males get arrested by the age of 23 (Brame et al., 2014). Paradoxically, there is also a trend of extreme impunity. White people are far less likely than Black people to be charged, convicted, and/or sentenced to prison; nearly no white person receives a death sentence; white-collar crimes are punished less harshly; and rape and domestic violence are not heavily scrutinized (Maddan et al., 2012; Rabuy & Kopf, 2015; Sered, 2019; Western & Pettit, 2010).

The prevalence of plea deals, surpassing 95% in the context of court cases, can be attributed to multifaceted factors. Among these factors, prolonged periods of detention, separation from familial support systems, the prospect of facing an extended sentence, and financial constraints leading to an inability to afford legal representation, collectively contribute to individuals’ decisions to relinquish their right to a trial in favor of plea agreements (Miller, 2021; Wagner & Kopf, 2015). However, what these individuals may not fully grasp when opting for plea deals is the irrevocable nature of such decisions. By forgoing the right to appeal, they effectively relinquish the opportunity to challenge or modify the outcome of their case. Consequently, felony records cast an enduring shadow over their lives, akin to an inescapable and haunting presence, impacting various facets of their personal and professional existence for the duration of their lives (Miller, 2021). So far, there have been 3168 exonerations since 1989, where racial minorities constitute 66% of all exonerations (Brame et al., 2022). The US legal system has become a management solution to the perceived “problemed population” (Miller, 2021, p. 6) rather than anything resembling justice. Consequently, the prison system can be viewed as a part of the lineage of control that can be traced from slave ships to filled bunk beds in jails and prisons (Miller & Stuart, 2017).

Structural Barriers to Reentry

Every year in the United States, around 600,000 people reenter society after being incarcerated (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2022). Additionally, around five million people are held prisoners in their homes through ankle bracelets, weekly drug tests, and GPS technology (Miller & Stuart, 2017). Today, 19.6 million people live with a felony record and almost all of them live in dire poverty with one-third of this population being Black (Miller, 2021; Shannon et al., 2017). Over 45,000 state and federal laws govern their lives dictating what they can do, who they can live with, when they can be out on the street, etc. (Mitchell, 2015). These laws regulate housing access by restricting them to occupy public housing or denying public housing altogether. Current housing laws in the U.S. also allow landlords in public housing to evict families who allow people with criminal records to stay in their homes (Miller, 2021). These laws also restrict their employment opportunities and provide employers the right to fire them without any reason. They can be denied a loan to start a business (Miller & Stuart, 2017). They are denied political participation, occupy public office, and can even be denied food stamps (Miller et al., 2018; Miller & Stuart, 2017). Additionally, laws restrict their family rights by not allowing them to visit their families, and their children (Miller, 2021). In some cases, these individuals are not allowed to leave the county and/or state. Miller (2021) calls this an afterlife in a “supervised society” with an alternate legal reality, where formerly incarcerated individuals are forced to live through their loved ones (Miller, 2021, p. 6). In the land of free, it is a new form of citizenship practices through punishment and exclusion where they gain the label of ex-convict, ex-offender, or ex-felon and where they struggle to feed themselves, find a place to sleep, work, and a chance to stand up for themselves. With very little power to exert any amount of control over their lives, it does not come as a surprise that 68% of FIIs get rearrested within a short period of under 3 years and 83% get rearrested within 9 years following their release (Alper et al., 2018).

Various research has found that incarceration itself is associated with an increase in recidivism ranging from 7% to 14% (Chiricos et al., 2007; Gendreau et al., 2000; Sampson & Laub, 1993; Spohn & Holleran, 2002) when individuals are formally labeled as “convicted felon” than those who are allowed withholding adjudication of guilt. Other factors that contribute to such a high recidivism rate include the unwillingness of potential employers to make an offer (Pager, 2003), the high unemployment rate (Couloute & Kopf, 2018), and a lower rate of formal education as more than half of FIIs hold just a high school diploma or GED (Couloute & Kopf, 2018).

There are about 19,000 labor market restrictions that make it impossible to find employment for FIIs (Mitchell, 2015). If FIIs manage to secure employment, their remuneration often falls considerably below the poverty line (Looney & Turner, 2018). Such conditions create a distressing scenario whereby the recidivism rate experiences a notable surge, exacerbating the hardships faced by FIIs due to the absence of viable career pathways or adequate support systems, thereby fostering a concerning cycle of poverty and homelessness. Prison Policy Initiative and other researchers found that people who are incarcerated are 5 times more likely to be homeless and people incarcerated more than once are 13 times more likely to be homeless (Herbert et al., 2015; Remster, 2021). Additionally, people experiencing unsheltered homelessness are nine times more likely to be trapped in the homelessness jail cycle (Couloute, 2018). Lastly, according to prevailing government laws, homelessness itself can be considered a violation of an individual’s parole status (Herbert et al., 2015). Within correctional institutions, several pivotal factors contribute to the hardships endured by FIIs, namely, feelings of shame, isolation, exposure to violence, and a compromised ability to fulfill their economic needs (Sered, 2019). Thus, having a criminal record serves a purpose of shame and danger for society and FIIs are a sign of risk, forever defined by what they once committed (Miller, 2021; Sered, 2019).

The structural barriers confronting FIIs, mentioned above, impede their ability to lead conventional lives, necessitating reliance on the goodwill of others to meet their basic human needs (Miller, 2021). In other words, their survival hinges on their capacity to persuade others to assist them, perpetuating feelings of shame and guilt, even after they have served their sentence. Upon release, they face time constraints to organize their affairs adequately. Notably, a “condition of release” document outlines specific requirements and prohibitions, such as curfews dictating their outdoor activities and mandatory attendance at drug treatment or Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings if they have substance abuse issues. Additionally, they are obligated to maintain regular check-ins with parole officers, engage in workforce development training, attend frequent case manager meetings, and actively search for employment within a limited time frame. Failure to comply with any of these obligations constitutes a parole violation and subsequent imprisonment. Today, parole violation results in 35% of new prison admissions compared to only 17% in 1980 (U.S. Department of Justice: U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, 2018).

Research has demonstrated that the presence of supportive loved ones can offer a crucial system of support, fostering accountability and assisting in their healing, responsibilities, rehabilitation, and personal development (Berg & Huebner, 2011; Fontaine et al., 2012; Naser & Vigne, 2006). However, current laws and policies create strong isolation for formerly incarcerated individuals from their loved ones.

Discriminatory and Social Barriers to Reentry

Previous research on successful reentry of FIIs has shown that one thing that can help them break the homelessness incarceration cycle is finding gainful employment (Berg & Huebner, 2011; Tripodi et al., 2010). Securing employment is one of the strongest predictors of reducing recidivism rate (Uggen et al., 2005). But unfortunately, for FIIs labor market discrimination and structural barriers create an extremely high rate of unemployment at 27%. This rate is five times higher than the unemployment rate for the general population and surpasses even the total unemployment rate during the Great Depression (Couloute & Kopf, 2018; Hwang & Phillips, 2020).

The “ban-the-box” policy, which restricts employers from conducting criminal background checks until later stages of the hiring process, has indeed contributed to augmenting employment prospects for certain individuals (Hwang & Phillips, 2020). Nonetheless, the inconsistent implementation of this policy by various states and counties nationwide has failed to effectively narrow the income disparity. Employees with prior criminal records, despite possessing comparable skills and competencies, face substantial undervaluation of their work quality due to prevailing perceptions of their perceived dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness. As a result, they suffer a notable wage gap, earning approximately $7,000 less than their counterparts without criminal records (Hwang & Phillips, 2020; Young; & Haynie, 2022).

Current laws, policies, and discriminatory practices present significant barriers for FIIs to get a second chance, assimilate into society, be accepted as productive citizens, and pay their debt to society. Existing government reform efforts have proven insufficient in tackling this multifaceted issue as they lack comprehensive approaches, credible theoretical foundations informing programs, and integrity in program implementation, among other deficiencies (Jonson & Cullen, 2015).

An additional critical factor impeding successful reentry is the lack of education, job training, and social capital among FIIs. Social capital refers to the volume of capital possessed by a given agent depends on the size of the network of connections that they can effectively mobilize and is based on mutual cognition and recognition (Bourdieu, 1986). Less than half of the formerly incarcerated individuals hold a high school diploma or GED. FIIs generally tend to have lower education, a dearth of job training and essential skills, and may grapple with drug or addiction problems. Upon release from prison, FIIs often lack stable housing, social ties, and financial resources to meet their basic needs.

The CHRD framework is particularly well suited to understanding the challenges described above because privilege, power, identity, and intersectionality are central to this framework. It is also appropriate for understanding the inter-relationships across levels of analysis (individuals, communities, organizations, and society) because the concepts of power, privilege, identity and intersectionality are conceptualized relationally (Collins & Callahan, 2023).

Career development within HDR is multifaceted, encompassing considerations at the individual, organizational, and societal levels. The assessment of career development from an organizational perspective is often guided from an economic perspective (how an organization benefits from developing employees). Moving away from this perspective entails a comprehensive approach that necessitates concerted efforts to redress issues of inequality, diversity, and inclusivity. Conversely, when scrutinized through the lens of societal concern, career development has the capacity to reveal entrenched structural barriers and interconnections between individual, organizational, and societal levels, which impede individuals’ capacities to innovate, conceive, and acquire knowledge (Shuck et al., 2018).

The aspect of individual concern within this context places significant emphasis on personal aspirations, choices, opportunities, and ideological constructs, including the concept of self. However, this perspective disregards the lived experiences associated with social identity, which subsequently curtails opportunities for marginalized communities (Byrd, 2016). In essence, theories rooted in individual concern frequently overlook the pivotal role of privilege as a catalyst for opportunity, as well as the conditions of social marginalization. A compelling illustration of this phenomenon is observed in the enduring label of “convicted felon,” an influential social identity that proves arduous to dissociate from for FIIs. Deviations from the norm of social identity engender dehumanization and lead to instances of discrimination and conflict (Korte, 2007). The challenges faced by FIIs in overcoming societal and structural barriers underscore the criticality of social identity, highlighting that certain identities enjoy systemic and societal privileges, while others are systematically marginalized. Moreover, those occupying positions of influence perpetuate and fortify systems that underpin disparities within both societal and workplace milieus (Rocco et al., 2023).

Additionally, intersectionality elucidates how marginalized social identities intersect and culminate in structural marginalization and oppression (Crenshaw, 1991). Career development of marginalized group when viewed from intersectionality and social identity lens afford insight into the intricate interplay between privilege and marginalization, as well as the complex web of interdependent social inequities engendered by disparities in power dynamics that FIIs face. Inequality when viewed through intersectionality provides an opportunity for contributing to the enactment of critical ideologies for challenging the normative perspective surrounding social identity, privilege, and power in HRD. Such a view not only exhibits the inherent capacity to serve as a conduit for addressing the policy-practice divide within CHRD but also propensity to increase broader acceptance and implementation of the humanitarian business model while advocating on behalf of marginalized segments of society (Hoque, 2007; Jacobson et al., 2015).

A survey by Society for Human Resource Management (2018) revealed that although most HRD professionals claim that their company has hired individuals with criminal records, a notable discrepancy exists between their claims and the awareness of non-HRD employees regarding such hiring practices. Moreover, inconsistencies were observed in the perception and actions of HRD professionals, where more than half of the HRD professionals claim they do not care about employing people with a criminal record. However, in practice, decisions related to such employment are largely influenced by factors such as legal liability, reactions from customers and employees, and regulation requirements rather than solely assessing the individuals’ job capabilities.

An additional criterion shaping hiring decisions is the preference for consistent work history which FIIs often lack. The same survey indicated that merely 3% of HRD professionals are actively engaged in recruiting such individuals. Addressing such implicit and sometimes explicit biases can be achieved through training and awareness as the survey found it is a deliberate choice to hire individuals with a criminal record when there is a concern for the community and a belief in providing second chances to individuals.

In the effort to establish a comprehensive and paradigm-shifting HRD praxis, HRD professionals must undertake a rigorous process of introspection pertaining to their personal identities, the privileges they possess, and the intricate tapestry of power dynamics in their workplace (Collins, 2012; Sambrook, 2008). Furthermore, these practitioners must internalize their role as catalysts of transformative change, possessing the agency to liberate marginalized individuals from the sway of hegemonic power structures, thereby facilitating both individual and organizational change (Avci, 2016; Byrd, 2016; Nackoney & Rocco, 2008).

Social Entrepreneurial Ventures and their Approach

Given that employment remains the strongest vehicle for offender reintegration (Berg & Huebner, 2011; Bushway & Reuter, 2002; Tripodi et al., 2010), efforts geared toward improving marketable job skills, education, and job training can significantly increase FIIs’ chances of integration. Additionally, emotional support, stable housing, motivation, and financial assistance are crucial until they establish themselves. Incarcerated individuals with strong social ties and support have a high rate of success post-release (Shapiro, 2001). Successful reentry thus involves reintegration into social institutions like work and family and desistance from crime (Denney et al., 2014; Pleggenkuhle et al., 2016).

The inability of the state and the insensitivity of the market to respond to some of the most pressing social problems has resulted in an unprecedented growth of social entrepreneurial ventures. These SEVs aim to provide goods and services that the market or public sector neglects or is unable to provide, fostering skill development, employment, and integration for socially excluded individuals such as FIIs (Trivedi, 2010; Trivedi & Stokols, 2011).

Social entrepreneurial ventures (SEVs) represent a means of rectifying societal imbalances (Martin & Osberg, 2015; Trivedi & Stokols, 2011) and may arise from religious, social, cultural, or professional motivations, as well as altruism and the government’s need for support in fulfilling public functions. They provide a private means to pursue public purpose outside the confines of the market and state (Dees, 2001; Halpern, 1997; Trivedi, 2013). Service delivery is not their exclusive mission, rather they act as social change agents taking up the role of educators and advocates challenging society to respond to human problems mainly through transforming public policy (Ryan, 1999). Because of their unique combination of private structure and public purpose, their generally smaller scale, connections to citizens, flexibility, and capacity to tap private initiatives in support of public purpose (Trivedi & Stokols, 2011), SEVs have emerged as strategic partners to forge new solutions to existing social problems (Trivedi, 2013).

Many SEVs are engaged in helping FIIs with the necessary skills, support, and environment to become productive citizens of the society where they learn to lead a crime-free life. Organizations (e.g., Delancey Street Foundation, Center for Employment Opportunities, Project Return, Women’s Bean Project, Prison Entrepreneurship Program, Defy Ventures, The Last Mile, and Project ReMade) have achieved remarkable success in supporting formerly incarcerated individuals, facilitating reentry, and substantially reducing recidivism rates to less than 10% to 20% from the previous average of around 60-80% (Center for Employment Opportunities, 2022; Maxwell et al., 2015; Project Return, 2022).

SEVs take a comprehensive approach to reentry by understanding the social system’s structure, developing a strategic decision-making framework, and continually evaluating the outcomes of their interventions. They provide paid employment opportunities, temporary housing, clothing, and on-the-job training to help FIIs secure and retain jobs, enabling them to transition into the mainstream economy. Additionally, they offer job coaching, placement services, and retention support to assist FIIs in advancing their careers.

Overcoming Labor Market Discrimination

The reintegration of incarcerated individuals back into society holds significant implications for the broader community. Notably, more than 90% of the incarcerated population is destined to return to society after their release, making their ability to secure employment and work crucial for themselves and societal well-being. Congressional Research Service report (James, 2014) based on evidence-based research highlights that interventions concentrated on individuals in the pre-release than post-release stages exhibit the most promising potential for reducing recidivism rates. Given this context, SEVs must engage with individuals while they are incarcerated. Collaborating with incarcerated individuals during their time in correctional facilities aligns with a comprehensive approach to addressing the challenges associated with reentry and reducing the likelihood of reoffending. By providing support, training, and resources within correctional facilities, SEVs can contribute to enhancing the employment prospects and overall societal outcomes of those reentering society post-incarceration.

SEVs recognize that lack of education and proficiency in reading and numeracy can be devastating during the reintegration process, especially when combined with stigma and addiction issues. Developing cognitive and moral capacities via educational programs plays a crucial role in decreasing recidivism (Bozick et al., 2018). Furthermore, these programs provide incarcerated individuals with a chance to gain knowledge and confront challenges, nurturing the acquisition of vital skills while expanding their sense of purpose and life ambitions. Consequently, SEVs start the reentry process while the individual is still incarcerated and continue to support them through the reintegration process. This approach has been recognized as a sound investment in public resources, with the key distinction from government-funded correctional education programs being the ongoing support provided upon release.

While job training and marketable skill development have increased the chances to find a stable job for such individuals, it is difficult for FIIs to overcome labor market discrimination (Looney & Turner, 2018). With racial disparities playing a significant role in the hiring process, white applicants with a criminal record have a better chance of receiving a job interview callback than do Black applicants without a criminal record (Pager, 2003). Black applicants with a criminal record are three times less likely to get a call back than Black applicants without a criminal record. Furthermore, even when FIIs secure employment, they experience drastic income penalties and are constantly undervalued with median earnings of a mere $10,090. Only 20% of the FIIs earned more than $15,000/year (Looney & Turner, 2018), an amount equivalent to the earnings of a full-time worker at the federal minimum wage. While HRD professionals can contribute to addressing such discriminatory practices, entrepreneurship can be a strong alternative and a career development strategy for this marginalized population (Hwang & Phillips, 2020).

The lack of reasonable employment opportunities, combined with their lived experiences and socially constructed identities, have led many FIIs, particularly Black Americans who face disproportionately negative outcomes from the criminal justice system, to explore the entrepreneurial market (Hwang & Phillips, 2020). Entrepreneurship, as a career choice, offers attractive benefits, as it liberates FIIs from their social identity and being solely valued by potential employers based on their criminal record. There is strong evidence indicating that entrepreneurship not only provides economic support but also psychological and social incentives, such as a sense of responsibility and work satisfaction, which significantly reduce recidivism (Uggen, 1999). Many SEVs, recognizing this potential, focus on providing entrepreneurial skills to FIIs, leading to exceptionally successful reentry rates when entrepreneurship is pursued as a career development path (e.g., Delancey Street Foundation, Prison Entrepreneurship Program, Inmates to Entrepreneurs, Defy Ventures). Choosing entrepreneurship can significantly narrow the income gap. Entrepreneurs with criminal records tend to earn about $2700 more than employees with similar records. Thus, entrepreneurship as a career path leads to a reduced recidivism rate of less than 5.3%, compared to the 32.5% recidivism rate for those who opt for traditional employment. This makes it a more meaningful choice and an effective tool to fight recidivism (Hwang & Phillips, 2020).

A Holistic Approach

Although addressing labor market discrimination, fostering entrepreneurial activity, and building collaborative capacity are essential for HRD professionals and policymakers to combat societal challenges, this paper focuses on exploring successful reentry from the perspective of SEVs and their role in catalyzing social transformation (Kwon & Nicolaides, 2019). SEVs, which can function as organizations or a collective of stakeholders, are viewed as dynamic entities that engage with social problems through a comprehensive approach (Bierema, 2009; Bierema & Callahan, 2014; Callahan, 2013). SEVs create alternate systems that critique existing approaches or their absence, leading to sustained positive social change (Grenier, 2019; Sisco, 2023) by generating new knowledge and translating it into collective action (McAlevey, 2015; Oswalt & Rosado Marzán, 2018; Scandrett et al., 2010; Windham, 2017). Drawing on two SEVs in particular: Delancey Street Foundation (DSF) and Prison Entrepreneurship Program (PEP), we explore how SEVs empower marginalized communities to reverse structural imbalance, build collaborative community capacity, and help FIIs defy their socially constructed identity to live successfully in mainstream society while being the vehicles for sustained positive social change.

Delancey Street Foundation is a residential education center where former substance abusers, ex-convicts, and homeless learn to lead productive, crime-free lives. Residents undergo education and vocational training, developing marketable skills and values necessary for successful social integration. DSF operates training schools and social ventures (café, restaurant, moving, and trucking, etc.) that facilitate skill development and positive community engagement.

The Prison Entrepreneurship program (PEP) trains incarcerated individuals (participants) on how to become business entrepreneurs once they are released. The program itself lasts for 9 months but PEP works with them and their families indefinitely after their sentence is over. The program consists of a 3-month leadership academy focused on character development, and a 6-month business plan competition, during which participants develop their own business proposals and pitch them to program volunteers. Participants earn a certificate in entrepreneurship from their partner university’s school of business, and once out of prison, they have the potential to earn seed funding from PEP supporters and micro-loans (English, 2016).

SEVs like PEP first start with the process of understanding the causes of the high recidivism rate at the individual, societal, and institutional levels. FIIs are in danger of going back to the life of crime from the moment they are released from prison (Warren & Crime and Justice Institute, 2007). There are many roadblocks for them to reintegrate into society and are often required to create a new life that requires a paradigm shift in thinking, being, and acting. They are typically released with no money, they lack employable skills, find it difficult to find a place to stay, pay rent, fees, fines, childcare, transportation, food, clothes, and hygiene. In addition, they are stigmatized, considered untrustworthy, isolated, and are under an immense time crunch to find income and support while following all the conditions of their discharge. The need for housing, healthcare, nutrition, social security, sanitation, employment, family, and community are dire all at once.

SEVs understand that behavior change requires more than just education, facts, and information (Duguid, 1982). While educational programs help people to change their identity and self-concept, providing motivation to lead better lives, social connection with teachers/mentors and peers provide a supportive and nurturing environment crucial to their successful reentry (Cullen, 1994). PEP starts counseling program participants in business and entrepreneurship 9 months before their release.

The process of restitution within SEV programs is characterized by several key elements, including the cultivation of a strong work ethic, active participation in reciprocal restitution, personal and social accountability, upholding principles of decency and integrity, as well as demonstrating genuine care for others. The path to successful reentry requires internal and external transformation. Hence, the first crucial task for the FIIs is to look inwards and confront their past, take personal responsibility for their actions and behaviors, confront their guilt and shame, and from the position of control learn new skills and behaviors. The second transformation in the path of recovery is to learn how to be social, learn new skills and behaviors, gain social capital, gain confidence, and learn how to gain the trust and respect of society.

Studies indicate that employing communication techniques to enhance the intrinsic motivation of FIIs is crucial for initiating successful behavioral change. Therefore, adopting a set of interpersonally sensitive techniques like empathetic listening, highlighting inconsistencies between words and actions, offering positive reinforcement for desirable behavior, cultivating self-efficacy, and modeling pro-social behavior are pivotal for effective rehabilitation (Antonowicz & Ross, 1994; Gendreau et al., 2000; Taxman et al., 2004). Hence as a first step, SEVs often engage in the character development (internal transformation) of FIIs. They understand that succeeding in life after prison is as much a mental struggle as it is a struggle for skills development and implementation. Character development starts first with confronting their past and developing a sense of responsibility and personal power. The U.S. criminal justice system creates a lifestyle of irresponsibility (Silbert, 1984). It teaches inmates to learn how to live in a closed environment, with no responsibility of their past, no interactions with the society, and are maintained at taxpayers’ expense. Incarceration strips people from past obligations and equally removes them from the control of their future. But such a punitive outlook leaves them out of options. The first step then is to confront the past.

Inmates/residents are forced to review their past histories, examine their upbringing and past decisions that led them to prison, relive every act, and explain every tattoo to their peer groups until they can get rid of the tremendous guilt that dominates their lives (Silbert, 1984). Such character development is guided by the philosophy that FIIs must take responsibility for their own actions and exert some control over themselves to create viable options for the future. PEP asks them to write their own eulogies, geared toward exploring who they are and what they want to be (English, 2016). This forces them to self-diagnosis and rethink their behavior. The strategy employed by SEVs harmonizes effectively with stages of change model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983), constituting a therapeutic method for facilitating behavioral change (Warren & Crime and Justice Institute, 2007). Such efforts are led mostly by the residents themselves at DSF and by servant leaders at PEP who are past graduates. They also rely on community faith leaders who lead the discussions on valuable lessons on societal norms. They develop a sense of humility and connection with their peers. They engage in self-reflection, identify their mistakes, get trained in identifying negative traits in themselves and others, and learn the dignity of earning their own way in the world (English, 2016; Silbert, 1984). Such an approach promotes contemplation (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983) in which participants understand reasons to change and the risks of not doing so which strengthens their confidence in their ability to enact the change. This is then followed by the ‘determination stage’ in which participants make their intention public (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983). The process of restitution adopted by SEVs follows cognitive-behavioral programs rooted in social-learning theory emphasizing the importance of observation, imitation, and modeling in the process of learning and behavior change (Bandura, 1977). They practice pro-social behavioral skills that are role-played rather than taught in a supportive environment by people who are socially skilled, firm, and consistent, and model appropriate behavior and provide necessary feedback. Such a practice focuses on cognition as a guide to social action leading to self-efficacy whereby participants contribute to their own social development (Kim, 2012). Self-efficacy builds persistence (Bandura, 1977). This serves as an extrinsic motivator to initiate a shift in behavior, aiding individuals in accomplishing the desired change (Currie, 2013; Warren & Crime and Justice Institute, 2007). Once they transform internally, they can then begin the process of external transformation.

Every resident at DSF gains vocational, personal, interpersonal, and social skills. The education program begins with basic reading, writing, and math skills until they receive a high school equivalency certificate. DSF operates nine training schools that serve as businesses to help them sustain financially. Residents first get in-house training where they learn skills but more importantly, they learn to develop work habits and self-discipline. Progressively as they become competent, they move up in services from in-house training to the customer-facing side of the businesses and then on to getting a job or starting a business in the community. Such a process breaks the cycle of self-destruction and instills self-respect, self-discipline, hard work, and caring for self and others. They learn how to be someone new, capable of something different, and how to step out of the shadows of the felony conviction.

PEP’s external transformation follows a similar process. After character development, inmates begin the business plan competition. They learn about entrepreneurship, business concepts and vocabulary, public speaking, business accounting, and how to develop, present, and implement a business plan complete with a multi-year financial forecast. They learn how to pitch their plans to volunteers and experienced free-world executives. PEP works with management students and executives who volunteer their time and serve as business-plan advisors providing personalized feedback on content and grammar, concepts, challenging their ideas, and providing financial advice on their proposal. These volunteers also help inmates with outside research.

SEVs collaborate with many different stakeholders to create pathways to economic mobility for FIIs. Along with business and entrepreneurship skills, FIIs gain vital social capital that makes them feel supported and prepares them for reentry. PEP brings various stakeholders together such as think tank executives and venture capitalists who work one-on-one with participants and provide important feedback. PEP facilitates business plan workshops with university professors and students who provide valuable guidance to participants. PEP works with HRD professionals and executives to facilitate mock interviews and organizes shark-tank style pitch competitions with executive volunteers. For PEP participants, completion of the program results in certification of entrepreneurship from business schools in universities and a chance to secure seed funding.

But FIIs still need help to overcome structural barriers. On the day of the release, PEP greets them at the door, helping them with acquiring identification, if needed, medical insurance, food assistance along with some necessities such as clothes and toiletries. SEVs provide them with transitional housing that helps them to maintain their parole status, prepare for jobs, and reconnect with their families.

SEVs understand the necessity of being inclusive to generate a feeling of ownership and a sense of value-added participation toward the social mission of the organization among the collaborators/stakeholders. Value-added participation and inclusiveness are at the heart of collective social action (Waddock & Post, 1991). SEVs rely heavily on other non-profit organizations, volunteers, prison facilities, universities and students, and various government institutions. They also maintain a strong social network of program alumni. They provide networking opportunities with employers who have hired their graduates.

SEVs succeed because they understand the socio-political and cultural context that produces the social problem. They understand the ecology of the social problem (Trivedi & Misra, 2015) and develop a holistic understanding that takes the complexity into account. They create systems and provide resources to transform the lives of people who aspire to be a better version of themselves.

Learning in SEVs

Researchers have argued that the success of SEVs depends not only on their ability to learn but learning is an integral part of SEVs because of the iterative and cumulative nature of social change creation with SEVs (Faminow et al., 2009; McGregor, 2014, Trivedi, 2013). Experiential learning is one of the cornerstones of social movement learning and can be best categorized as either highly planned, structured, and scenario based or informal and non-formal learning that is unplanned, accidental learning both stemming from daily experiences, educational influences, and contextual environments (Kolb, 2015; Sandlin & Walther, 2009). However, this type of learning needs retrospective recognition of both a new significant form of knowledge and the process of acquisition (Livingstone, 1999; Schön, 1987). This form of learning allows SEVs to test ideas, assumptions, and develop collective knowledge (Livingstone, 1999). Since SEVs are driven by their mission, learning within this movement is also driven by the mission and shared vision. Others have argued that learning and social membership are co-dependent where learning appears to be a precondition of and form of social membership within such spaces (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Since SEVs are geared toward reversing imbalance in society, stakeholders view themselves as social change agents who are engaged in co-creation of knowledge through dialog and critical reflection (Freire, 2018). SEVs proactively engage all stakeholders in a productive exchange of thoughts and ideas through dialog, “a sustained collective inquiry into the processes, assumptions, and certainties that compose everyday experience” (Isaacs, 1993, p. 25). Through dialog, individuals engage in active reconciliation and integration process that produces unique knowledge and aligns cognitive schemas (Bierema & Rawls, 2022). This collective cognition is “logic of practice” which helps the SEVs to learn while engaging in social action (Kilgore, 2001, p. 147). This perspective supports Nicolini’s (2012) and Schatzki’s (2002) stance that “practice” is the heart of advocacy practices and social action. The practice of critical reflection and action also aligns with Mezirow’s (2000) conception of transformative learning and Kolb’s (2015) experiential learning. Additionally, learning in SEVs is not an extraneous goal but rather a pursuit of social justice (Bennett & McWhorter, 2019). Such a social-emancipatory approach to collective learning and action should be part of HRD praxis where HRD needs to be more supportive and less directive of social movement learning and advocacy for social change (Sisco et al., 2019). HDR professionals can help SEVs create spaces for strategic discourse that can crystallize knowledge creation within this process which can then be institutionalized (Bernier & Henry, 2023). SEVs like Delancey Street Foundation, PEP, and Defy ventures, are all committed to providing FIIs support and skills that enable them to live successfully in mainstream society and transform their lives. Such commitment to collective action is essential for holding the organization together and enhancing feelings of community and value-added collaboration whether inter-sectoral or inter-organizational stakeholders, seeking funding for projects, or any other activity, among stakeholders.

The sense of collective participation and value-added collaboration in SEVs leads to the building of social capital. To achieve the value embedded in the collective vision SEVs must embrace end values rather than modal values (Waddock & Post, 1991). Social entrepreneurs motivate people to achieve transcendent or end values such as liberty, social justice, and equality and it is this collective participation that helps in realizing the common vision of the SEV and fostering collective purpose. SEVs rely on collective wisdom, the experience of the community, employees as well as partners, and understand the importance of community collaborative capacity building. Thus, organizational learning leads to collective knowledge, which is the accumulated knowledge of the organization stored in its rules, procedures, routines, and shared norms (Levitt & March, 1988). This systematic integration and collective interpretation of new knowledge leads to collective action. SEVs understand that successful resolution of a social problem is a collective pursuit and it is this collective character that is essential to its success (Trivedi, 2013).

Challenging Social Power Relations and Structures

Empowerment is “a process by which people, organizations, and communities gain mastery over issues of concern to them” (Zimmerman, 1995, p. 581). SEVs are guided by the philosophy of empowerment at the grassroots level to create positive sustained social change. Although empowerment is a difficult process, which is often slow, at times frustrating, not always efficient, and full of unavoidable setbacks, SEVs operate with an understanding that change cannot be trickled down, imported, or imposed. Change must come from people who are directly affected by the social problem that SEVs identify and strive to resolve. SEVs empower FIIs through power-accruing processes in three interconnected domains: psychological, economic, and social (Pareja-Cano et al., 2020). The acquisition of financial capital is foundational for attaining status and augmented decision-making authority. However, the adequacy of financial capital alone is insufficient without the accompanying development of human capital, involving skills enhancement (Molnár, 2017). Yet, the mere procurement of these resources does not guarantee empowerment unless FIIs successfully surmount institutional obstacles hindering their effective resource utilization. In instances where the trajectory of societal transformation mandates a reconfiguration of social and cultural identities, as observed in the context of FIIs, SEVs furnish a form of “identity capital” denoting the investments individuals allocate toward shaping their identities (Côté, 1996, p. 425). SEVs serve as conduits of essential psychological resources within the psychological domain, facilitated through mentorship, consultation, and access to a spectrum of resources, thereby fostering a sense of self-worth, entitlement to participation and decision-making, as well as self-efficacy and autonomy (von Jacobi & Chiappero-Martinetti, 2017). In the economic sphere, SEVs facilitate the acquisition of resources, consequently amplifying control over one’s undertakings, while the social dimension accentuates collective cohesiveness, engendering a feeling of belonging, shared identity, and solidarity. The actualization of empowerment mandates the concurrent establishment of these domains, as their interplay mutually reinforces each other. This symbiosis empowers FIIs to transcend the limitations imposed by their structural barriers and socio-cultural identities, consequently contesting prevailing hegemonic power frameworks and facilitating profound individual and societal transformation.

Stakeholder empowerment represents another significant facet within the realm of SEVs. In their pursuit of this goal, SEVs frequently leverage interpersonal and professional networks, harnessing their potential to foster both economic and social capital. This is achieved by actively promoting stakeholder engagement and facilitating the empowerment of individuals and communities. Given the complexity of social problems addressed by SEVs, the establishment of organizational structures and a culture that prioritizes effectiveness, problem-solving, responsiveness, flexibility, adaptability, creativity, and innovation becomes imperative (Trivedi, 2013). Such an environment serves as the bedrock for enabling stakeholders to tap into their creativity, engage in experimentation, and contribute novel ideas. Empowerment and autonomy can be instrumental in fostering intrinsic motivation, a pivotal factor in imbuing one’s work with meaning and establishing a personal commitment to the organization’s mission (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Thus, stakeholder empowerment emerges as a linchpin for instigating social action and challenging the prevailing discursive practices and power dynamics that often marginalize vulnerable communities. Within this context, HRD has the potential to position itself as an intermediary agent. It can facilitate the cultivation of a sense of psychological ownership among stakeholders and pave the way for the emergence of a shared framework of meaning, capable of contesting dominant discourse and its manifestations.

SEVs play a dual role: they both expose and challenge the power structure and structural barriers that hinder the successful reentry of formerly incarcerated individuals into society. The foremost impediment to FIIs’ rehabilitation is the punitive nature of the American criminal justice system, which has gained notoriety for its leading incarceration rates. SEVs emphasize the potential for transformative outcomes by advocating investment in alternative rehabilitation frameworks, aiming to dismantle these barriers. These structural obstacles are chiefly responsible for ensnaring FIIs in a cycle of homelessness and incarceration. SEVs empower FIIs by enabling them to confront and reform the social injustices they encounter. By emancipating individuals from guilt, shame, isolation, and violence, SEVs challenge the prevailing social myth that FIIs are incapable of evolving into productive community members. This narrative shift disrupts the cycle, fostering empowerment and collaborative community capacity that paves the way for successful reintegration. At an individual level, SEVs break the pattern of irresponsibility for FIIs, catalyzing a reckoning with one's past and fostering agency over future trajectories. Through participation in these social movements, FIIs intentionally acquire knowledge to deconstruct the barriers they face while reigniting public awareness and concern for their issues (Sisco et al., 2019). These ventures initiate an iterative process of knowledge generation, fostering action learning that drives tangible social change (Rivlin, 2015). Thus, SEVs create a platform for critical dialog and collective action, establishing legitimacy and support infrastructure for all FIIs. These efforts transform into arenas fostering the “development and production of counter-hegemonic discourse” (Sisco et al., 2019, p. 180). SEVs, as silent challengers, boldly confront systemic powers upholding societal injustices, providing a rich field of exploration within the realm of CHRD scholarship and practice.

Implications for HRD

Positioned as a critical approach within the realm of HRD scholarship and practice, the CHRD perspective seeks to infuse every facet of HRD with a critical and social justice orientation (Collins & Callahan, 2023). This endeavor aims to restore HRD to its foundational humanistic values and promote egalitarian practices, thereby steering the discipline away from the prevailing normative neoliberal interpretation that excessively prioritizes productivity and performance. Given that human emancipation is central to CHRD (Lawless et al., 2012), research on social entrepreneurship has demonstrated its capacity to deliver emancipation. Social entrepreneurship is inherently ‘emancipatory’ (Haugh & Talwar, 2016), its potential can enable individuals to transcend environmental constraints and foster new possibilities. Empowerment involves reorganizing processes of resource exchange, challenging the power dynamics entrenched in prevailing structures, and making explicit declarations of intent for transformative social change.

The pursuit of enduring social transformation invariably hinges on adopting a stakeholder-centric approach to interpreting the value generation stemming from the activities of SEVs. This interpretation is channeled through narratives, stories, and symbolic gestures purposefully designed to incite change. These stories serve the dual purpose of garnering stakeholder backing while also revealing inherent contradictions, both intended and existing, within the change-making endeavor. The field of HRD should closely examine these narratives, delving into the interplay between stories and social practices (Grenier & Kaeppel, 2023). Such an examination carries the potential to critically assess and disrupt prevailing structures, thereby liberating individuals from their ingrained biases and beliefs (Galinsky & Ku, 2004; Todd et al., 2011). In this context, SEVs can be examined as liminal spaces (Bierema & Callahan, 2014), or even as prefigurative spaces (Boggs, 1977). These spaces provide participants with the means to envisage alternative societies by offering activist networks, skills, and a sense of solidarity (Evans & Boyte, 1992; Polletta, 1999) through unconventional modes of organization, learning, and advocacy for constructive change. Genuine inclusivity, which serves the interests of all organizational stakeholders, necessitates the disruption and transformation of existing organizational paradigms (Kwon & Nicolaides, 2023). Thus, for scholars and practitioners within HRD, a pressing task lies in confronting entrenched ontological and epistemological dualities to embrace novel, liberating modes of organizational structure (Rigg et al., 2007). Additionally, such an orientation toward stakeholders can empower individuals connected through tenuous links to challenge established structures. HRD scholars and practitioners can explore methodologies that facilitate such grassroots-driven transformations and can also engage in consciousness-raising efforts to foster solidarity among marginalized communities (Sisco et al., 2022).

Learning often takes a back seat within the landscape of HRD, particularly when the traditional organizational norms falter in determining the where, how, and by whom learning and development within organizations transpire. However, within SEVs, a novel perspective emerges—one that underscores mission-driven learning through social interactions and dialog. Dialog helps in aligning the cognitive schemas of various actors through integration and reconciliation resulting in collective social action. Such learning not only illuminates alternative paths to impactful change but can also bridge the gap between HRD research and practice (Merriam & Bierema, 2013; Ross et al., 2020).

Another area of interest for HRD is the potential to facilitate employees’ personal and societal growth, guiding organizations toward practices and policies that align with employees’ broader values (Raeburn, 2004). Researcher have argued that when employees’ self-interests align with organizational values, an environment conducive to engagement and collective action is nurtured (Murphy, 2010), fostering a holistic and authentic employee identity (Bierema, 2002; Collins, 2012). The context of SEVs also serves as an ideal arena for intersectional theorization, challenging established norms. Thus, SEVs can provide an opportunity to advocate both social and economic justice in diverse contexts arises, propelling emancipatory undertakings within HRD practice and research (Collins et al., 2017).

Exploration of leadership practices, particularly within SEVs, offers a promising avenue for HRD to delve into collective leadership dynamics (Trivedi, 2013). Through such explorations, HRD scholars and practitioners can pave the way for genuinely inclusive systems. Moreover, the establishment of an organizational and collective identity that fosters a sense of belonging presents yet another realm where HRD professionals can foster inclusive and open environments, nurturing a sense of psychological ownership.

At the individual level, HRD professionals must cultivate a combination of creativity and critical thinking when addressing management demands, meticulously evaluating the rationale behind any interventions they conceptualize, implement, or execute. Central to their role is the cultivation of self-awareness concerning injustices and the experiences of those who encounter them, such as the recruitment of FIIs. Within this sphere, HRD professionals wield the potential to shape both policy and practice, strategically steering them toward the realm of social justice.

CHRD's perspective of social justice can be amplified through the study of SEVs, narratives, stakeholder-oriented value generation, and inclusive leadership practices. Additionally, SEVs stand as symbols of empowerment and equity—values that harmonize with the essence of CHRD, rendering the two domains naturally complementary. These components can synergize to create a transformative approach for HRD professionals and scholars, fostering a more equitable and empowering organizational landscape.

Conclusion

We argue that there are opportunities for synergies between the fields of social entrepreneurship and CHRD. SEVs approach complex societal problems like recidivism by addressing underlying structural problems to promote individual agency and empowerment. SEVs advocate for programs and policies that encourage entrepreneurship and extend the rights of formerly incarcerated individuals, build collaborative capacity by engaging a broad range of stakeholders, and address labor market biases. Collective learning through dialog and reflection is central to effective problem-solving in SEVs. Organizations and HRD professionals can both contribute to and learn from SEVs’ approach to foster inclusive, equitable, and empowering organizational landscapes.