This section summarizes the student’s data-gathering process and key findings from survey, interview, or other inquiry methods.
Throughout my data collection, I have been built toward one central question. How do we make philanthropy feel accessible to people who do not see themselves as philanthropists? This month, I approached that question from a new angle. Instead of asking about philanthropy broadly, I focused on two specific and practical forms. Crowdfunding and personal spending choices. This was to understand where individuals actually feel comfortable participating. What I found confirmed patterns I have been noticing all year and opened up new questions I did not fully expect.
Crowdfunding Survey Findings
The crowdfunding survey I created was designed to understand how people perceive platforms like GoFundMe as a form of giving. Whether they see it as legitimate philanthropy, whether they have donated through one, and what concerns they carry about its use. The results were revealing, and in some ways, surprising what my original perceptions had been.
The majority of respondents had either donated through a crowdfunding platform or could see themselves doing so, which tells me that this form of giving already feels accessible in a way that traditional nonprofit donations sometimes do not. The reason, consistently, was personal connection. People gave, or would give, when they knew the person, or when the cause felt close to home for them. Proximity drives giving and seeing it show up strongly in the context of crowdfunding made me think differently about what that means. The concern that came up most was around scams and accountability. How do you know if a campaign is legitimate? How do you know your money is going where it says it is? This is a valid concern, and it is one I want to address directly in my research section. What I will say is that this concern is a barrier that awareness and education can lower. People are not refusing to give, they are giving carefully. Survey Results
Workshop Data
I had the opportunity to host a workshop surrounding philanthropy and ethical giving. This added a layer of data I was not expecting. I had the opportunity to connect with a guest speaker, Greg Brooks, who spoke on the ethics of giving and why it is important as a student to be aware of this pathway to impact. It showed that the concerns of crowdfunding are replicated on a larger scale and that there is a distrust towards large institutions on how they act with donor money. In the second half of the workshop, I had created an activity in which individuals were given a sum of money and then asked to distribute it among a variety of nonprofits. Some focusing on a national level, with others being as local as the carehub on their college campus. Each donation had a level which tied to a different level of impact which was then revealed to them after their donations had been made. What I found was that individuals shied away from donating to larger, national organizations and were reaffirmed by the impact reports showing that their funds typically would have been less intentionally directed. With their local donations, the impact was easier to see and often helped improve the wellbeing of the nonprofit on a larger scale compared to something state, or nation-wide.
As we looked at the different impacts they hypothetically had, we began a discussion about why they chose to donate to each cause. One “donor” shared that they donated to Project Read, a nonprofit that focuses on literacy skill development for adults, because they experienced an environment where they noticed individuals not receiving support in these areas. Another shared that they donated to the Huntsman Mental Health Institute as they had been a support system during a specific time in their life. For me, I chose to donate to the UVU Carehub as they are directly supporting the community that I am a part of. Having this direct association for me, made me feel more connected and comfortable contributing my “money” to them. These stories shared created the idea that individuals gravitate towards local, personal causes and away from large national institutions where they can’t necessarily see where their giving goes.
What This Combined Data Tells Me
When I look at both datasets side by side, the picture painted is consistent. People want to give, people are giving, and they are doing it in ways that feel human and direct. A GoFundMe for a friend, a donation to a cause their professor mentioned, a contribution to a local organization they see in town. These are not lesser forms of philanthropy. They are philanthropy in its most accessible form. The question I am sitting with is how do we honor the accessibility of these small, personal acts of giving while also helping people understand how to make those acts more intentional and impactful over time?
Community Partner Discussion & Immersive Experience
This section shares insights from a community partner interview, connecting their perspective to the Pathway theme.
I did not know what to expect when I got to Los Angeles. What I did know in my months of preparation leading up to this trip is that homelessness in LA is not an abstract statistic, it is visible, and very present. The theme surrounding this alternative break trip was to explore the unhoused community and urban displacement, and who is actually doing work on the ground. Over the course of the trip, my group and I had the opportunity to engage with several community partners, each approaching the same problem from a variety of angles. What I left with was not a single answer, but a much deeper appreciation for what it means to meet people where they are. The purpose of the trip was not tourism. It was learning through the community. There were multiple learning outcomes and opportunities that we as trip leaders identified for our participants, but also for ourselves.
Every partner we visited reinforced the idea that meaningful change does not come from one approach, one organization, or one donation, if we are looking at philanthropy. It comes from a web of interconnected efforts, all grounded in relationships and love for the community.
The first partner we met with was Jazzi, proud owner of the Reparations Book Club. A space that invites community the moment you walk through the door. A book club is not what first comes to mind when I think of social change, however this place proved me wrong. It is a space for community engaged learning and organizing, centered around storytelling, shared education, and building a safe space for people to freely express themselves. What stood out to me the most was how in this business environment, there is an expectation that they need to compete with Amazon. Questions like, “why is it more expensive, what’s stopping people from going to Amazon and paying half the price” or “why won’t you change your model to be more like Amazon?” However, people misunderstand that this is not the goal of the Reparations Book Club. It’s not aiming to be a corporation that is there for profit. It’s there for the community and one of the joys that Jazzi shared is how she has been able to watch that community grow up as her store has progressed and aged through different times. Prioritizing these relationships and adapting to all the social issues in the area was what stood out the most to me. Even if Reparations Book Club was to close down that day, yes there would be sadness to it, but Jazzi still sees it as a success because of the impact and relationships she has made.
On that same day, we were able to have a virtual training with the Sidewalk Project on harm reduction. This training, to me, was immensely important especially to have at the beginning of the trip so we know how to prevent causing harm to the communities we were learning from. Parts of this conversation were uncomfortable and created a lot of vulnerability. Harm reduction meets people exactly where they are, without conditions, without judgement, and without the expectation that someone has to be ready for change before they deserve care. The lived experience of the people they serve is centered in everything they do. By changing our language we can also prevent unintentional harm. By saying “people experiencing homelessness” rather than “they are homeless,” we can switch the narrative from a label to someone’s lived experience which helps emphasize dignity. For me, this discussion of how language has more of an effect than we may think stood out to me. The way I talk about others is in my control and by knowing the difference between humanizing and harming in the words I use can build trust and respect between myself and my community.
A large portion of our time on this trip we were able to spend with LA Room & Board. The organization, founded by Sam Prater, works to end youth homelessness and hunger in LA County through higher education and wraparound services. This was a wonderful experience because we had the opportunity to share it with another university which provided more insights than I could have imagined. The spaces we were in while learning about LA Room & Board showed how much care and investment they put into the individuals they are serving. Their housing programs aren’t just a way to have “housing-first,” but to have an environment where the residents feel as if it is their home and contributes to their motivation and culture of people they are surrounded with. Sam put a huge focus on community-engaged learning during our time with him. He brought in board members from their nonprofit and local officials to offer Q&A sessions and to see the work that not just nonprofits are doing, but what is happening on a local government level. This allowed us to see an issue from a more systemic perspective, hitting on multiple of our learning outcomes, and how the work we do moves through different levels to make an impact.
As we were trying to cover all the pathways of social impact, we spent time doing direct service with LA Family Housing. We spent time organizing clothing into specific categories so that when case workers came in to get direct needs for the people they were supporting, they had exactly what they needed right in front of them, no confusion. At first, it was hard for me to understand the long term impact we were having for the unhoused community and led me to ask myself the question “in what ways can short-term impact lead to sustainable change?” Throughout our time organizing clothing and books I also considered “what is important when providing direct service to make sure that it is directly aiding immediate community needs?” With these questions in mind, I spent a lot of my time there with the reassurance that the backend work we were doing was helping the organization and its goals. The realization also came when one of the members at LA Family Housing said that because of the work we were doing, it freed up more time for him to focus on the case workers instead of sorting through all the material by himself. I think sometimes it is hard to see direct service improving the systemic quality of an issue, but seeing the impact it makes on the people involved in the work creates those relationships that inspire hope.
Our last community partner we met truly wrapped everything we had learned on this trip into a nice bow. Strategic Actions for a Just Economy has a broader focus on issues as a whole working with land development, tenant rights, and environmental causes. However, it is all brought back to the policies in place and how to organize the community to address economic and housing inequalities. They provided an informational session that explored not only recent activity, but how urban and environmental displacement dates way back to the 1900s with redlining. As we explored these topics, my brain was overloaded with so much. How can issues this complex and deeply rooted in the system be overcome? Can they even be overcome? And the answer is yes. Even though I might not be able to see the impact of my work during my lifetime, knowing that I can impact and advocate for my community and encourage social change to happen past my time, is the start to fighting against systemic injustice.
There is a difference between researching housing displacement and standing right in the center of it. I have spent a majority of my time building a definition of philanthropy rooted in love, in relationships, and in the belief that meaningful change requires being present. This trip made that real in a way that no survey or article could. Each of these five organizations expressed love for humanity and none of them required wealth alone. All of them required showing up. And even more impactful, was the friends I made through this trip that showed up. How each one of them engaged fully and wholeheartedly through this trip truly showed to me that people do care. People do love their communities enough to go out and advocate for them. This was such a transformative experience for me and I hope it was for those I got to be with. I am so grateful that I had the opportunity to lead and be a part of this LA Spring Break community and I am so proud of the work and effort our group put in.
Guided Discussion with Sam Prater
If you spent five minutes with Sam Prater, you would understand why LA Room & Board works. He is the kind of person who will call himself a dinosaur and then right after say something that completely reframes how you think about funding and community. Sam is the founder and executive director of LA Room & Board. He is warm, direct, and deeply committed not just to the mission, but to the people at the center of all of it. This conversation was one of the most grounding I have had all year.
When Sam first started LA Room & Board, the majority of their funding came from private donors. That model offered flexibility, but it was unpredictable. Over time, the organization shifted toward public funding through LA County. Although it shifted their goals a bit to a broader perspective, it gave them stability. Sam made a point that even with this change in mission, it helped them make more of an impact, because it is nearly impossible to execute a mission when your funding only extends a year at a time. By eight or nine months in, you are already preparing the next report. You are not making a deep impact, you are just surviving until the next cycle of inconsistent funding. The organizations making the most lasting change are the ones who have built trusting, long-term relationships with their funders, not just one time transactions. Sam described their county partnerships as exactly that. “They believe deeply in our mission”, he shared, “and we have put a good deal of confidence that we will continue performing and making an impact” (Prater, 2026). That is not a grant cycle. That is a relationship.
One of the questions I brought to Sam was about crowdfunding, platforms like GoFundMe, and whether they could meaningfully support the goals of a nonprofit. His answer was honest and nuanced. Crowdfunding, in his experience, works well for what he called bite-sized, tangible needs. Raising money for laptops for students, or blanks, or a specific one-time purchase that feels clear and accessible to donors. But when it comes to raising money for operational capacity, for hiring case managers or building infrastructure, he was skeptical. “Folks are kind of like, ah, that doesn’t feel like a GoFundMe”, he said (Prater, 2026). Crowdfunding is not a replacement for long-term, relationship-based philanthropy. But it is also not nothing. It fills a very specific and human gap and understanding where that gap matters.
The part of our conversation that felt most personal was when I asked Sam about engaging college students in social impact work. He was candid and open by saying that nonprofits are not doing enough to show up in college spaces. And the connection between what students are theorizing in classrooms and what organizations are practicing in the community is a gap that both sides need to close. He said something that stuck with me as a college student studying social issues through my work. “Students are learning in class, but here with nonprofits, that’s where the real work is done. We're doing this thing you’re learning in class and learning how to solve it” (Prater, 2026). Sam shared that nonprofits could do more to show up with learning opportunities, such as internships, on campus to break down that wall of visibility. Sam has confirmed that from a nonprofit side, visibility has been, and will continue to be a barrier. Students are not apathetic. They just do not always know where to look. And organizations like LA Room & Board are not always making it easy to find them. Sam left me with optimism though as he shared that after this trip he was thinking about how to get onto college campuses more intentionally. He’s already started this by hosting, not only our school, but another college community for these alternative break trips. And to me, that is what the beginning of a relationship looks like.
This section summarizes readings and research related to a relevant topic within the student’s Pathway and connects them to larger patterns or themes.
Crowdfunding
When did it become normal to fundraise online to survive a medical emergency? When did GoFundMe become the backup plan? These are not just rhetorical questions, they are real scenarios individuals go through in times of need. The idea to research this came to me when I learned about James Van Der Beek. If you are not familiar, Van Der Beek was an actor best known for Dawson’s Creek who passed away in late 2024 after a battle with cancer. Before his death, his family launched a GoFundMe campaign to help cover the expenses and fallout of the medical costs. The campaign eventually raised over 2.7 million dollars, but also came with backlash. People were angry, asking why and how does a celebrity need our money? Why is someone with that kind of fame asking the public for help with medical bills? But I think that reaction, as understandable as it is, misses the more important conversation. The question shouldn’t be why did the Van Der Beek family need a GoFundMe, the question is, why should anyone need to resort to that?
The Scale of the Problem
Crowdfunding for medical expenses has become, quietly, one of the largest forms of grassroots philanthropy in the United States. A 2025 study published in Health Affairs Scholar found that approximately one-third of working-age adults reported that healthcare costs made it harder to afford household bills, food, and housing (Collins et al., 2023, as cited in Duffy et al., 2025). GoFundMe itself has shared that medical campaigns make up a significant portion of all funds raised on the platform and hospital financial counselors have begun recommending it as an alternative to medical debt collections. A crowdfunding platform has become part of the financial counseling toolkit in hospitals. How interesting is that? This is not about generosity failing in the context of medical expenses, it is a story about systemic gaps being patched over by individual generosity. Researcher Nora Kenworthy at the University of Washington has studied medical crowdfunding extensively and found something that complicates the feel good narrative around it. People in states with higher rates of medical debt and lower insurance coverage are more likely to start campaigns, but less likely to succeed. The people who need it most are the least likely to benefit (Kenworthy & Igra, 2022). The visibility of your campaign consisting of your follower count, your network, your ability to tell a compelling story determines how much help you receive. That is not a neutral, unbiased system.
The Van Der Beek Case and the Ethics of Public Giving
The Van Der Beek situation became even more complicated when it was reported that the family had purchased a $4.8 million ranch shortly before his death, at the same time the GoFundMe was active. I understand why the backlash intensified and I would be on that same side. There is something that feels wrong about asking for public support while also making a multi-million dollar purchase. I also think the backlash revealed something worth examining. There is a narrow, gatekept sense of who deserves philanthropy. One commentator, Snyder, noted that medical bills bankrupting even famous actors “does show that there is this underlying rot in the system” (Weaver, 2026). I think that is right. The Van Der Beek case made medical costs visible in a way that statistics do not. It personalized a crisis that most people prefer to keep at a safe distance away. And whether or not you believe his family needed the money, the reality is that millions of families in far less visible circumstances are launching the same campaigns every single day and raising a fraction of what the campaign raised. The average GoFundMe campaign raises around $2,500 which is not nearly enough to cover a treatment plan, let alone a single hospital stay (Gunter, 2026).
How to Engage With Crowdfunding Ethically
So what do we do with this? I do not think the answer is to dismiss crowdfunding as a lesser form of giving when it is the most accessible entry point into philanthropy. I do think we need to be thoughtful about how we engage with it. Here are a few questions I have started to ask myself when considering if I want to donate to a small, crowdfunding campaign.
The last question is not meant to diminish the act of giving to an individual in crisis. Sometimes temporary relief is exactly what is needed. In my interview with Sam Prater, he told me that crowdfunding is well suited for “bite-sized”, time specific needs and I think that is right. A family covering medical bills, a student replacing stolen technology, or a community raising money after a natural disaster. These are real and meaningful acts of philanthropy, but they also exist alongside, not instead of, the long-term systemic work that organizations are doing every day. Crowdfunding when approached with intention is a meaningful and accessible form of philanthropy. Particularly for those of us who have more heart than disposable income. It is not a cure for a broken system, but it is proof that when people can see a face, a story, and a need, they will show up. And it is worth asking and exploring how we can channel it toward something that lasts.
Community Resources
This section highlights helpful tools or guides that support real-world application of the Pathway.
Jose Andres is the founder of World Central Kitchen, an organization that shows up after natural disasters and humanitarian crises with food, often before formal aid systems can get there. Change the Recipe is part memoir and part practical guide to doing good in an imperfect world. The central idea is adaptability and that you cannot solve a wicked world problem with a rigid plan. You have to be willing to change the recipe when ingredients change. I kept thinking about this book in context of the LA trip. Every partner we visited had adapted to the specific needs of their community, to shifts in funding, and to a landscape that changes faster than any strategic plan can keep up with. Andres models this beautifully in his book in order to show up, learn what is needed, and be willing to pivot. For philanthropists and donors, this is equally instructive. Giving that is rigid and condition heavy often fails the people it intends to service. The most impactful philanthropy, like the best recipes, leaves room to adapt.
This was my second time reading this book and this time I focused on how the themes of vulnerability are applicable to social change and philanthropy. Brene Brown’s central argument is that vulnerability is not a weakness. It is the birthplace of connection, creativity, and belonging. And the more I sit with that, the more I see it in social impact through relational care. Think about what it takes to launch a GoFundMe. You are publicly admitting that you cannot handle something alone. You are asking strangers and people you may know to see you in a moment of need. Sometimes you’ll be met with generosity, and sometimes met with judgement. Even giving takes vulnerability. We’re stepping into the arena with someone else to help them face their struggles. Brown’s work helped me understand that we have been taught to distrust vulnerability, in ourselves and in others. We have been taught that needing help is a character flaw and that belief is one of the deepest barriers to relational care in social change work and philanthropy. If we cannot let ourselves be vulnerable, and if we cannot hold space for other people’s vulnerability, we will never build the trust that meaningful giving requires.
Brooklyn Org & Donor-Advised Funds
If you’ve had the thought that you want to give more intentionally, but you do not know how to do that without a lot of money, Brooklyn Org is a model for Donor-Advised Funds (DAFS) that answers this question. Brooklyn Org is a community foundation that uses something called DAFs to make strategic, long-term philanthropy accessible to everyday people. DAFs in its simplest way is just depositing money into a charitable account, receiving a tax benefit, and then directs grants from that account to causes you care about over time. It is like a philanthropic savings account. Most people assume this kind of structured giving is only available to corporations or high-income donors. Brooklyn Org pushes back against that assumption by making DAFs accessible to a broader community and center local organizations as the recipients. This offers a bridge from small-scale giving to larger impacts. You might grow into a place where you want to give more strategically and consistently than to a GoFundMe here and there. Brooklyn Org and tools like DAFs are how that growth happens. You do not need to wait until you are wealthy to start thinking like an intentional philanthropist, you just need to know that the tools exist. In this way, Brooklyn Org reframes philanthropy not as something reserved for the wealthy, but as a practice anyone can build over time with the right structure and intention.
This section offers closing reflections and invites readers to consider how they can apply the insights in their own lives and communities.
This month’s work has honestly been a wake up call for me. That I haven’t been doing enough of what I write about in action. I learned so much from the alternative break, hosting a workshop, and reading books that may not have a direct tie to philanthropy. I myself, even as a college student, can be doing more to donate locally and be involved in nonprofits. There have been so many passionate people I have engaged with who make this work real and living and that is something that I do not want to ignore. I look back on how I have defined philanthropy. A love for the community. And this means not doing things alone. It can be so overwhelming when trying to tackle a problem by yourself, or even as an organization. It’s so hard to be vulnerable and admit that you need help but that is why philanthropy exists. It is there to share the love one has for one another to overcome these hurdles through sharing resources.
Philanthropy has become so traditionalized with it feeling like you can only become a philanthropist once you have made your wealth. However, that just truly is not the case. Social change, as I’ve seen with displacement in LA, is not a strict “this is how it is.” So why should one of the levers of change for social issues be seen as just an outdated method of philanthropy. Young-adults, as I have found, are extremely passionate and waiting for the opportunity to open up to them. However, nonprofits are not mobilizing enough to engage with this audience. I don’t want to put all the weight on nonprofits, because it is also on us as individuals. Like I said, I have not been the best at freely giving what I can to a cause that I am passionate about. A little can go a long way, especially on the local level.
We need to be visible. Both as volunteers and as nonprofits. None of this can work if no one is showing up. My challenge is not necessarily to donate money compulsively or seek out funding. I don’t want to place an expectation on that if that is not the place you're in right now. Instead, I want you to be present and start building relationships with the local community. For individuals, and myself, this may look like attending volunteer events at a nonprofit that relates to an issue you care about. Overtime and by building relationships, give a little extra, even if it is as little as $5. Philanthropy is that accessible. For nonprofits, do your best to show up in spaces and offer these opportunities to college students. There are so many individuals out there that want to connect to your community and work. The alternative break trips we went on is proof of that. There are groups of people willing to go advocate and learn about your organization. I wouldn’t be saying this if I wasn’t also holding myself accountable. I plan to find, on my own time outside of my work hours, an organization, cause, or individual that I feel close to and give a little extra of my time and donations. It may be uncomfortable at first to step into a new space, but that is why community exists. “The most powerful moments of our lives happen when we string together the small flickers of light created by courage, compassion, and connection and see them shine in the darkness of our struggles” (Brown, 2012).
