Community Practice Social Workers: Social Intrapreneurs? Social Entrepreneurs? Monica Nandan, Kennesaw State University, GA Gokul Mandayam, University of Southern California, CA

Macro Practice Social Work Community practice social workers Administrators Policy practitioners

Global Context Complex, dynamic social and economic issues Macro practitioners, (e.g., community practice social workers)- -creative in addressing issues. Community practice social workers as community practice social entrepreneurs (parallel—Nandan, London & Blum 2014). Social Entreprenuers Social Intrapreneurs

Social Entrepreneurs Create social value Promote social good through social innovation, exploit opportunities, strengthen networks, galvanize stakeholders, take calculated risks, build social capital. Often start new ventures for implementing the innovative idea.

Social Intrapreneurs Similar behaviors to social entrepreneurs (risk taking, innovation, exploiting opportunities, creating social change…) except within the existing infrastructure and assets of an organization. Take risks while balancing org. interests; share credit; build teams for innovation; sell idea to administrators.

Engaging Community & Social Impact Macro practitioners—administrators, community practitioners, policy advocates etc. expected to engage community members Build capacity, promote autonomy, generate social capital. Social Impact: address root cause of social problem. net effect of activity on a community, and the well-being of individuals and families.

Focus of Study Survey Design Mail and distribution at state-wide training events (NASW) Measurement 10-item tool (Helm & Anderson,2010): innovation, risk taking, proactive behavior of social intraprenurship/social entrepreneurship Community engagement (1 item). Perception of social impact (address root cause of issues—1 item). Demographics

Sample 30% response rate (27 out of 90 self-identified CPSW in NASW state chapter membership) Incentive provided (J.C. Penny Gift Card Sweepstake drawing).

Descriptive Statistics – Sample Profile VariableMean Score/Percentage 1. Academic Qualifications of Participants MSW (89%) 2. Average Number of Years as a Community Practitioner < 18 (17.92) 3. Average Revenue of Participating Agencies for the Past Fiscal Year $ 3.17 Million 4. Predominant (more than 50%) Sources of Revenue Fee for Service (26% of respondents) Government Grants (11% of respondents) Private Donations (7% of respondents) 5. Category of Community Practice Mental Health (51.9%) 6. Current Position within Agency Community Practitioner (75%) Director (25%) 7. Most Frequently Employed Skill in Community Practice (Note: does not total 100% because more than one response selected) Community Organizing and Policing (57.1%) Policy Practice (57.1%) Community Planning (47.6%) Community Development (33.3%)

Social Intrapreneurship – Components ComponentMean Score 1.Overall Social Intrapreneurship Score (Overall Innovation + Overall Proactiveness + Overall Risk-taking) Overall Innovation Score Overall Pro-activeness Score Overall Risk-taking Score Community Engagement Perception of Social Impact 1.77 Scale: 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High

Social Intrapreneurship, community practice and position Variables Percentages 1.Type of community practice agency exhibiting medium to high level of social intrapreneurship Mental health agencies 70% 2. Type of community practice agency exhibiting high level of overall proactiveness Mental health agencies 69.3% 3.Current position within the agency exhibiting medium to high level of social intrapreneurship Director 100% Community Practitioner 60%

3.Type of Community practice skill utilized by CPSW indicating medium to high level of social intraprenurship Community Planning 100% Community Organizing 89% Policy Practice 60% Type of Community practice skill utilized by CPSW indicating medium to high level of community engagement Community Organizing 75% Community Planning 80% Type of Community practice skill utilized by CPSW indicating medium to high level pereceived social impact Community Organizing 72.7% Community Practice Skills: SI, CE, Social Impact

Statistically Significant Relations Relation between SI and PP Skills Spearmans Rho:.53p=.03 Relation between Level of Comm Eng & CO skills usage Spearman’s Rho:.37P =.09 Relation between Level of Comm Eng & PP Skills usage Spearman’s Rho:.54p=.007 Relation between Perception of Impact of Community Solutions & Usage of CO skills Spearman’s Rho:.48P=.03

Conclusion Social Intraprenurship behaviors dominate. Use community organizing, planning and policy practice skills. Lower than medium level of community engagement for co- creating innovative solutions. Perception that innovative solutions appeased community suffering moderately.

Implications for Educators and Practitioners Incorporate social intraprenurship and entrepreneurship language into macro practice curriculum. Incorporate the social impact and corporate social responsibility language into macro practice curriculum. Promote developing partnerships with corporate sector.

Implications (cont.) Incorporate more community engagement curriculum and opportunity for undergraduate and graduate students. SE and SI curriculum in nonprofit and business disciplines can incorporate more CO, CP, and PP skills. Interdisciplinary courses and internship opportunities.

Recommendations Large scale research to test three hypotheses: There is a correlation between social intrapreneurship behaviors and different community practice skills. There is a correlation between the size of an agency budget and social intrapreneurship behaviors. There is a correlation between social intrapreneurship behaviors and perception of social impact.