This section summarizes the student’s data-gathering process and key findings from survey, interview, or other inquiry methods.
At the Center for Social Impact we follow a Social Change Design. This involves empathizing, defining, ideating, prototyping, testing, and implementing when addressing social issues and community needs. Throughout the last three months of my data collection, I’ve identified the issue as: individuals, with a focus on students, are unaware and do not feel as if they can meaningfully contribute to philanthropic efforts. I was able to develop this problem statement through the first step of the Social Change Design method by empathizing. I have conducted surveys and observations to develop an understanding of the people I am serving. After identifying this statement as my focus for my year as the philanthropy fellow, I sought to define philanthropy. I want to make it clear that the definition I have come up with is not just my own, but a merging of my research and the beliefs of individuals I have received insight from. I also want to acknowledge that definitions can change over time, but for the purpose of finding a solution to the lack of awareness and involvement, I will be using one definition. This data collection will highlight the research I conducted this month, but also identify the common themes from the past three months that have brought me to my definition of philanthropy.
Philanthropy, moving forward, will be defined as a love of humanity. It is the act of expressing this love through generosity and charitable efforts to improve the well-being of all living things, whether through giving money, time, or talent.
To end my research and reach this definition, I asked a simple question: Which definition of philanthropy do you relate to most? Or, if neither fits, provide your own definition. I then provided the two definitions which I used in my first two months of research:
To my surprise, I learned that those engaging in the development of this definition did not favor the second one. I had hypothesized that the expanded definition would relate to more people. This helped me continue to reflect that it is important to pull from, not just my beliefs and findings, but from the experiences of others. A shared belief among those relating to definition one, mirrored my problem statement. One student shared that “To [them], philanthropy has always sounded like something wealthy people do with their money, so the first definition felt more accurate.” Very similar, another student shared they “feel like philanthropy is something only done by rich people so they’re more likeable.” This perpetuates the false idea that we cannot contribute to philanthropic efforts that create change because we do not have wealth to do so. I think a perfect answer to this feeling came from the voices of those that connected with the second definition. One student liked “the second definition because it emphasizes compassion and community, not just financial resources.” And to perfectly sum up the purpose of the second definition a student shared that “it’s not always possible for everyone to donate something physical, and even if it is, we have to have uplifting emotions going on too.”
From these responses, I truly do believe that the first definition creates a world where the term marginalizes communities, such as students, and makes them feel as though they cannot participate in philanthropy. I also believe that the first definition lacks the care and desire needed to drive meaningful change. For funding to mean something, the motivation has to mean something. For those believing that philanthropy is a wealthy activity, yes that is true, because it has been made to seem that way. It has been used for influence, whether for public image or politically, but you cannot just throw money with no intention at a cause and expect a lasting change. I believe that the first step in breaking down this idea and to move towards intentional philanthropy is to create a definition that is inclusive. To avoid mission creep and to avoid philanthropy’s use as a way to gain power, we have to create a world in which philanthropy is meaningful and accessible to everyone. I don’t think it’s necessary to get rid of the first definition, because at its core, philanthropy is donating. However, the first definition has gaps which the second definition addresses. As I finish my collection of experiences and opinions, the common theme that has appeared is that philanthropy is inaccessible, but people want to contribute more. These last three months have been insightful in finding a workable issue and I plan to continue to collect data as I search for a solution that reflects the experiences and needs of the community.
Below is the results from both my survey and tabling event I conducted for this month:
Poll:
Which definition of philanthropy do you relate to most? Or, if neither fits, provide your own
definition.
Explanations from students:
First Definition
“I picked the first one because I’ve mostly seen philanthropy tied to financial giving, like
donations or scholarships.”
“To me, philanthropy has always sounded like something wealthy people do with their
money, so the first definition felt more accurate.”
“I prefer more concrete definitions.”
Second Definition
“I like the second definition because it emphasizes compassion and community, not just
financial resources.”
“The second one resonates more with me because it captures the motivation behind
the action, not just the action itself.”
“Sometimes giving your time and talents can be better than money as long as you have the thought of giving without receiving in mind that’s what matters.”
“Philanthropy is more than the act of doing but doing because you care to help those around you.”
“Expressing love to someone is something they can't take back. I feel like love is more impactful than just donating or private funds.”
“I think it’s not always possible for everyone to donate something physical, and even if it is, we have to have uplifting emotions going on too.”
“I chose 2 because I relate to 2 more because I don't have a lot of private funds for charities and stuff like that. However, I complete philanthropy with my fraternity and in general by completing good acts whether that's helping the local ALS family or raising money or helping the veterans association with their events. Giving back to the community is always fulfilling and I do so in the ways that I can.”
“Phil means love in Greek”
Community Partner Discussion
This section shares insights from a community partner interview, connecting their perspective to the Pathway theme.
I am so excited to share what I have learned from my community partner for this month as this is an organization that I feel close to, being an animal lover. Best Friends Animal Society (2019) is a nonprofit organization working towards “No More Homeless Pets.” They work towards this mission by helping achieve no-kill shelters across the nation. I had the opportunity to explore more in depth their mission and strategies by interviewing Patrick Theobald, the community program manager. As well as touring their adoption center in Sugarhouse, Utah, and volunteering in a local shelter in Orem. As I have reflected on these experiences, I learned you cannot have one without the other. The work I did at Orem’s Spay and Neuter Clinic reflected the kindness to animals that I learned about in my conversations. The attitudes talked about in my interview were reflected by the individuals within the shelters I visited. Conversations are equally important to volunteering in philanthropic efforts.
One of the first things I noticed in both locations is the care that is put into every animal that was there and the healing nature of the shelters. In Best Friends Animal Society (2019) they follow the golden rule “To treat all living things as we ourselves would wish to be treated.” I love the extension of the golden rule, which I’ve always viewed on a person-to-person basis, to animals as well. They are just as deserving of the care we give to each other in the community because they are a part of our community. To give additional background about Best Friends in Utah specifically, there are only two shelters left that are working towards no-kill. I learned that people often pull away from shelters that have yet to achieve no-kill because of the negative connotation it carries. This only contributes to shelters not receiving the support needed to reach the goal of no-kill. Patrick shared a value that fights against the stigma that shelters that are not at no-kill status receive. “Nobody gets into animal sheltering because they want to kill animals. That just doesn’t happen. So everyone who’s working there has the best interests of the animals at heart, and they just need more support, more community involvement in order to reach that goal” (Theobald, 2025).
This value was clearly present within the individuals I worked with during my immersive experience. They talked about how often they would come in on short notice because they love the work they are doing and they care about the animals in their shelter. They not only said this, but showed this. They treated every animal like it was their own. The passion for their work created a bond between workers and the animals that fostered a family environment. I truly believe that this is the way to meaningful change. This not only applies to the workers that are there consistently, but to the volunteers. Patrick spoke on how volunteers “can see the different animals [they] have from week to week as they’re coming back because so many of them get adopted, go home, and [they] pull in more from local shelters” (Theobald, 2025). This allows volunteers to see that the work they are doing is impactful, as more animals are saved, and more come in to be saved. Although I only had one volunteer opportunity, I felt that the work I was doing was meaningful. I was grateful that I was able to do small, busy work because it allows the trained professionals to focus on the heavy lifting. One of my favorite parts from this experience was the animal noises. Hearing the kittens meowing, then falling asleep and having quiet time, to then wake up again and meow their little heads off was adorable. It also was a realization though because it verbally and visually showed me how full this one shelter was.
This observation leads me into what is the call to action for Best Friends Animal Society. How can we free up shelter space to save more animals and move closer to a fully no-kill shelter nation? It is so important to go into this work, not with the mindset of “I know what’s best for you,” but asking the questions of “what do you need?” It’s about identifying the resources that each shelter needs from their experience. This is where philanthropy ties in. The resources shelters need is volunteer work, monetary donations, and most of all, adopting animals. Patrick explored the difference in volunteer work and contributing financially. Both are equally as important, and it’s personal preference. He shared that “the volunteering aspect is really about the connection to the animals and the connection to the mission” (Theobald, 2025). Being able to connect with the work only positively influences longevity of the mission. In addition, funding is essential to keeping the work running. What I love about the funding for Best Friends Animal Society is that it is completely donor funded, there are no grants or government funding. They are funded by people out there who love animals and want to do what they can to help.
As I wrapped up and reflected on my interview and my experience working closely with Best Friends Animal Society, I looked for ways of how philanthropy presented itself. Obviously, the financial contributions allow the lights to stay running for Best Friends. They are able to have a platform for their work because of the donations they receive which is amazing to see. Not just for the organization, but for the animals. Philanthropy isn’t limited to just us as humans. I believe, and have been shown, that philanthropy can and should be expressed to improve the well-being of animals. What better way to improve the well-being of animals than to end the killing in animal shelters. The most shocking statistic I learned, and ultimately the solution, is that “if just six percent more [people] adopted, rather than buying a pet, every shelter in the country would be no kill” (Theobald, 2025). A final call to action. The most charitable donation we can make is our time and resources to support these animals. They deserve the same unconditional love that they give us.
This section summarizes readings and research related to a relevant topic within the student’s Pathway and connects them to larger patterns or themes.
The recent government shutdown, lasting forty-three days, led to a loss of federal funding to a variety of services that many individuals rely on. During this time I saw how the lives of many were suspended in limbo because they were unsure of when they would regain access to these services. Also, I saw philanthropy take place to fill the gap that the limited government resources created. It was bittersweet to see this take place because it was amazing to see how quickly the community came together to donate funds, time, food, all to support community needs. However, it was sad to see that this was necessary to happen when members of the community expected the government to be reliable. As I approached this from a philanthropic standpoint, I asked a couple questions. What happens when government funding runs out? Billions of dollars were lost, with millions of people feeling the effects. With how many people and organizations rely on government funding, it is impossible to know if they could survive during another prolonged shutdown. So who is responsible to fill the gap in funding? To address these concerns, I have chosen three specific instances in which groups were affected and are still feeling the effects of the shutdown: National parks, SNAP recipients, and essential workers. Although these are three vastly different subtopics, they are all connected by the common issue: they are funded by the government. Rather than giving a hypothesis, or thesis statement, I want to ask these questions I’ve had for each topic. Leaving room for conversation and ideation on how we can move forward.
To explore an issue close to home for many in Utah, the national parks have taken a toll during this shutdown. Parks like Zion’s National Park had many of their workers furloughed. This means trails receive less maintenance, wildlife protection efforts decline, and visitor programming is scaled back, putting the parks at a risk of closure. However, nonprofit organizations are dedicated to preventing this from happening. In an ABC News article, Aerts reports that the “Zion Forever Project is paying for whatever the park needs on any given day…” (Aerts, 2025). Although there is a mix of state funding to cover necessities such as public safety and health, the majority of park funding comes from nonprofit and individual donations. Zion’s National Park has a strong connection to the Zion Forever Project that allows for continual support, but other parks do not have these same types of communities in place. This puts smaller parks at risk in the long-term as minimal government funding can only go so far. In addition, they are evaluated on things like “how many people are visiting each day, the economic impact on small businesses around the park, and environmental sustainability” to determine how much they are worth investing in (Aerts, 2025). If the parks are already running at limited capacity due to government shutdowns, how can they expect to earn more investments if they are not meeting or exceeding this criteria. We have seen that the Zion Forever Project has taken the responsibility to fill the gap for Zion’s National Park, but what about all of the other parks across the country? Can nonprofits realistically sustain the long-term needs of national parks, or is reliable government funding essential to their survival?
Another issue affecting people at both the local and national level was the loss of SNAP benefits. SNAP provides food assistance for low-income individuals and families. Forty-two million recipients lost these benefits. The response was immediate. I saw families share how they were concerned that their children would not receive enough nutrition and worried that if the shutdown continued it would negatively affect their health. With these stories shared, the community once again responded as they did with national parks. Free hot meals were being offered throughout the majority of states. People posted on social media where to find these resources and guided individuals to the help they needed. Similarly, larger companies stepped in to provide support on a broader scale. In Grocery Drive, Moran highlighted how grocery stores, like Hy-Vee, donated food and money through partnerships with food banks and community organizations to assist SNAP recipients (Moran, 2025). These efforts, both by communities and corporations, were on a national level. While this relief was immediate, it was also temporary. In a perfect world, local communities could fully meet the needs of those facing food insecurity. Yet in reality, many organizations still rely on government funding to ensure ongoing support. Unions representing millions of workers in food industries, as well as individuals directly affected by this loss, were “pressuring federal lawmakers to address the funding issues for SNAP…” and urging agencies to provide funding to programs “to avoid SNAP participants losing their benefits” (Moran, 2025). These responses highlight the problem created when essential services are interrupted. They also raise an important question. To what extent can communities replace government support, and how reliable is federal funding in sustaining these programs?
Just as the government supports national parks and SNAP programs, it also funds the essential workers, such as air traffic controllers. Essential workers hold jobs necessary to protect health and safety, and during government shutdowns, they often work without pay. Although the average American does not typically travel by plane throughout the year, it is still a concern of safety for those that do. Their safety matters, just as ours does. The salary loss of these employees triggers staffing shortages leading to “increased reports of strain on the system from both pilots and air traffic controllers” (Federal Aviation Administration, 2025). High stress in a high demand work environment with few workers creates safety concerns for air travel. Because government funding was unavailable to support these workers, alternative methods were taken to maintain safe flying. This meant “a temporary 10 percent reduction in flights at 40 high traffic airports” (Federal Aviation Administration, 2025). I’ve seen in my own travels, how myself and others get frustrated when flights are delayed or cancelled. I catch myself and acknowledge that this isn’t the fault of the airport and workers, but a consequence of the lack of support that they receive during these times. Air traffic controllers don’t receive typical philanthropic donations, so how can we support these workers? How can we ensure their well-being and that they are being reciprocated for the work that they do?
Throughout this exploration, there have been three different topics covered. Each presented with a problem all stemming from the same source. Two of these topics had some relief through philanthropic efforts in both monetary donations, but also donations of time and talent. However, not all that was discussed can receive that same support. Essential workers lose out on philanthropic efforts to support salary because they are federal employees. I think that it is important to highlight areas where there is no solution, because then we can try to implement what has worked for other areas. In both cases of national parks and SNAP, philanthropy has taken place in order to remedy what was lost. The big takeaway I’ve gained from this research and that I hope I can express to others is that individuals can come together, no matter the class, to participate in philanthropy. The relief provided by communities during the government shutdown shows that philanthropy does work, but it also needs a more systemic focus. The temporary relief is important, but it doesn’t stop the issue from happening again. How can we take the successes of short-term philanthropy and turn that into long-term success? At its core, the love community has for one another in times of need is what will bring about intentional philanthropy that works.
This section highlights helpful tools or guides that support real-world application of the Pathway.
Borealis Philanthropy’s Resource Library
The Resource Library is a transparent collection of videos, interviews, and writings. It is a clear insight into how Borealis Philanthropy practices and encourages philanthropic movements. Borealis works to connect funders to organizations pursuing systemic change. They are making philanthropy accessible to everyone in an ethical way and the Resource Library is a space to see this growth. The library lets you filter by social themes and also look at different organizational insights. With the ease in finding information, Borealis strengthens existing resources and allows for knowledge-sharing to create long-term power. One of my favorite pieces from this resource is that it is such a powerful tool for philanthropy. By providing fund announcements and reflections, the library makes the organization’s positive impact visible and accessible. They are ethical in these practices and storytelling as well because they have grounded this collection in lived experience. Their focus of philanthropy is not to make them seem more likeable, but is to truly represent the lives of those affected by social and justice issues. The Resource Library stands out as a model for how philanthropy can be ethically documented and used for sustainable and scalable growth.
Power of the People: Sourcing Grassroots Wisdom to Reimagine Philanthropy’s Learning and Evaluation Process
The Movement-Defined Learning Project, created by Borealis Philanthropy, is an essential tool in moving philanthropy towards intentional and truly meaningful work. They do this by using participation and evaluation to help communities set their own metrics and build a culture of learning. They recognize how philanthropy’s current practices have “inherent power dynamics of funder-grantee relationships” (Borealis Philanthropy, 2024). The way to solve this is to make philanthropy a way of storytelling, to focus on the lived experiences of those in need. The Movement-Defined Learning Project created the Liberatory Learning Lab as a space to deepen trust and build horizontal accountability grounded in lived experience. The grantee partners share how difficult this work is and how “it takes a lot of capacity, people power, and a lot of time to make the change [they] want to see” (Borealis Philanthropy, 2024). The leaders in this are confident that they have the skill and commitment in order to “set up the next generations or grassroots Black organizers for success” (Borealis Philanthropy, 2024). These stories and tools remind us that philanthropy’s future depends on letting lived experiences create the path forward towards change.
Community Foundation of Utah
On a state level, the Community Foundation of Utah is here to help anyone and everyone take part in philanthropy. They embrace learning and are adaptive to the needs of those utilizing their resources. If you have no knowledge on how philanthropy works and how to participate, they can teach you. If you are concerned that you don’t know where your donations are going to, they can provide a one-on-one session to maximize your impact. In addition to promoting their values of longevity, innovation, and collaboration, they also show how to align your values with organizations so you feel connected to the issues you support. The Community Foundation enables you to be the center of philanthropy, not their organization. Being locally-grounded, they are able to focus on you, but they also have a focus for the nonprofits in Utah. They are able to connect nonprofits to funders supporting their long-term growth. You may not need these resources today, but because the Community Foundation is sustainable, you can step into philanthropy whenever the time feels right.
This section offers closing reflections and invites readers to consider how they can apply the insights in their own lives and communities.
In my own reflection, after writing and rereading this over and over, I have learned two very important things. One, there are people wanting to teach us how to be more involved in philanthropy so it’s not a scary unknown. Two, the step toward making this less of an unknown is changing how we understand the term philanthropy. Philanthropy is a love for humanity. It is a way of storytelling. It is a way of sharing and learning from the lived experiences to promote social change. It is a way of donating your generosity through money, time, or talent to improve the well-being of your community. I hope that after reading through this you can feel the love that philanthropy presents to all living things. I want you to walk away knowing that you can participate in philanthropy. The concerns from individuals that philanthropy is a wealthy activity is a common misconception. But it is a harmful misconception. If you don’t feel as if you can participate in these practices, it leaves gaps in potentially donation opportunities. These gaps prevent animals from moving from shelters into caring homes. These gaps prevent the beauty of humanity from thriving during times of hardship. There is room for all of us in philanthropy. There is room for all of us to love.
As we have seen in both animals and humans alike, we are all searching for compassionate care in times of need and philanthropy can be an answer to this. There is a worry that the current state of philanthropy is geared towards temporary relief and not systemic change, but we can change that. Through the resources provided, you can find ways to connect with issues that you are passionate about. You can learn from organizations how to be more intentional with philanthropy and how it can be a sustainable individual practice. Conversations around love and learning are the way to addressing systemic issues head on. You don’t need to be an expert in philanthropy to participate. You just need a love for the change you want to support. Experts are there to guide you in this process, because philanthropy isn’t something that is done alone.
My challenge for you is this. Come at philanthropy from a new perspective. Challenge the idea that you can not participate because you are not a corporation or because you are not the richest individual alive. Reframe philanthropy as: I can participate. I can participate because I am loving. I can participate because I have talents that someone can benefit from. The very first step to philanthropic change is to acknowledge that you are capable of participating. From here, find those resources that can enable you. A few great resources have already been provided throughout this memo that are there for you to take advantage of. A little can go a long way in someone’s life. There is always a person, there is always a pet that can use just a little more. Individual philanthropy is that little boost.
