This section summarizes the student’s data-gathering process and key findings from survey, interview, or other inquiry methods.
As I began to explore the theme that philanthropy cannot exist without relationships, I wanted to understand how others perceive relationships within philanthropy. Specifically, I was curious whether people believe there is an uneven power dynamic between donors and recipients, whether there is a misunderstanding of what resources are actually needed on both ends, and whether philanthropic contributions benefit society as a whole or just one group of people. To make sure that there wasn’t any confusion on how philanthropy is defined in the context of social impact, I provided the definition before the survey. That philanthropy is expressing love through generosity and charitable efforts to improve the well-being of all living things. While this definition captures the relational sense of philanthropy, I acknowledge that individual interpretations of the term may still influence responses that I cannot track without further exploration. Additionally, I also understand that wording choices and familiarity with philanthropy may have affected how participants understood and answered certain questions. However, because this survey was distributed to the same audience as my previous data collections, I am confident that the responses reflect a consistent process allowing for useful information.
As I was developing this survey, I initially hypothesized that responses would lean slightly negative towards relationships in philanthropy. What I mean by this is that I expected participants to believe that donors are often favored over recipients, resulting in an uneven distribution of benefits and limiting long term impact. While some responses did affirm this concern, I was surprised and encouraged to find that many respondents expressed a more optimistic view of philanthropy as both relational and beneficial to society. Several survey questions revealed that there was an emphasis on collaboration and communication between donors and recipients. When asked to describe the relationship between donors and recipients in philanthropy, responses were split between “mostly collaborative” and “mostly transactional,” with fewer respondents identifying the relationship as an uneven power dynamic. This suggests that while people recognize transactional elements within philanthropy, there is still a positive belief that collaboration plays a meaningful role. This pattern continues in the questions related to decision making and lived experience. A majority of respondents agreed with the statement that philanthropists prioritize the needs of recipients above their own perspectives or opinions. Similarly, many respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that lived experiences and needs of recipients should guide how donations are used. When I looked at these questions hand in hand I think it shows that there is a belief that philanthropy should be rooted in communication and responsiveness. However, they also suggest that respondents may already assume this is how philanthropy works which raises important questions about perception versus practice.
The final questions explored this last question and sought to understand how people viewed the impact of practicing philanthropy. When asked if philanthropic contributions are being appropriately used, the majority of responses believed that donations are being used thoughtfully and for the betterment of society. This is continued by the last question of the survey which asked “who do you think benefits most from philanthropy?” From this, the overwhelming majority thinks that society is at the heart of receiving philanthropy. However, this question and its answers also sparked some reflection in me as no respondents selected individual recipients as the group that benefits the most from philanthropy. To me this shows a disconnect between who philanthropy is intended to support and who is perceived to benefit most directly. This result points to a potential inefficiency at the individual level. While philanthropy may be viewed as successful in producing broader societal outcomes, the lack of perceived benefit to recipients highlights a relational gap. Before philanthropy can create sustainable, society and community wide impact, it must function effectively within one-on-one relationships between donors and recipients. Without trust, communication, and mutual understanding at this level, long term impact risks become abstracted rather than lived.
As I reflect back on these data collections and compare my own thoughts versus how responses were gathered, I am hopeful to see that there is a viewpoint that relationships are ethical and relational between recipient and donor. Even in my work, collecting data is building relationships and when I work with nonprofits and organizations, relationships are at the core of all of it. I have found that a common theme is that everyone is looking for relationships within their community. Whether it be one-on-one friendships, or if it’s through working with a nonprofit or being involved on campus, relationships are building blocks for all best practices. Because of this, I have come to the conclusion at the end of my data collection and analysis, that relationships are also the stepping stones for philanthropy. Philanthropy is built on interactions, whether viewed as transactional or not, and for meaningful philanthropy to exist, a focus on the relationship between donor and recipient is a necessity.
Community Partner Discussion & Immersive Experience
This section shares insights from a community partner interview, connecting their perspective to the Pathway theme.
There was no better way to start the year than by engaging with an organization on campus that is also beginning new events. This month, I had the opportunity to learn more about the Entrepreneurship Institute at Utah Valley University, located in the Keller Building, through both an event and a guided discussion with a member of their team. This has been one of my favorite organizations to engage with because it is immediately accessible to students and designed around their needs. I first became involved through the Entrepreneurship Club’s opening event of the year, which was a brief, informal introduction to the Institute’s objective and goals. What I particularly loved is that because this is a student run organization, it is very clear that they want what is best for the students. The events are memorable, skills based, and most importantly, shaped by the students who attend them. This emphasis on student input reflects a best practice in philanthropy: being grounded in lived experience. This prevents funding from being misused or misdirected ensuring that entrepreneurs fully benefit from the Institute’s services.
This was further reflected in my guided discussion with Iris Tuminez, the Communication Specialist at the Entrepreneurship Institute. Iris’s role at the Institute is to communicate with mentors, business owners, community members, and students to keep everyone in the loop of the Institute’s events and outreach. This role directly reflects the central theme of this memo that philanthropy cannot exist without relationships. The theme is affirmed by how the Institute defines philanthropy itself. Iris explained that their focus is not on sustaining a program for its own gain, but on investing in people. This philosophy is especially significant when paired with entrepreneurship as it is a path that can be an intimidating process. The Institute cultivates a community and backs it with financial support to approach this process from an optimistic and guided approach. Mentors play an active role by participating in classes, workshops, and meeting one-on-one with students. In some cases, these relationships even extend into personal investments. As Iris shared, mentors sometimes choose to invest their own money into student businesses after developing trusting relationships where they can see the growth and potential.
These investments are philanthropic not only because they provide financial resources, but because they are grounded in encouragement and relational accountability to benefit the well-being of the community they are a part of. Iris described how impactful it can be for students to receive validation for someone with lived experience in the industry. Being surrounded in support and hearing a mentor say, “you totally can do it because I’ve been there” can lead to shifts in student confidence and morale. This combination of relationship building with actual funding reflects a broader understanding when defining philanthropy. It reflects that all investments whether it be money, time, talent, or emotional investment creates a trusting care that ultimately benefits the well-being of individuals, communities, and society as a whole. This trust in mentor-entrepreneur relationships is built through a horizontal accountability structure. Students are not working for their mentors or for the Institute, but they are working with them. The Institute meets students where they are at, not where they believe they should be at. Even if there is an idea that doesn’t seem like it will work out, they let the students explore that road and trust the process, and if it ends up not working out, they still have the trust that as a team they can pivot to a situation that benefits them. This creates a sustainable environment because it allows for continuous learning that goes past their time at university and with the Institute.
Another key way that the Entrepreneurship Institute centers relationships is through its open accessibility. When I personally have thought about the term “entrepreneur” I imagine a business major taking up an endeavor of providing a service. I don’t imagine someone from an arts or science major taking their passion and creating a company from it. I acknowledge that this isn’t true, but the stigma creates a blockade to accessing the skills and community that entrepreneurship creates. The Institute actively pushes against this common belief by making sure that everyone feels welcome. A great example of how the Institute is for every major is Iris herself. She is a psychology major and throughout our conversation together she was looking at questions from a psychological perspective and how philanthropic efforts, both on donor and recipient sides, affect community and well-being. From all walks of life, students are encouraged to apply entrepreneurial thinking to their own fields. Taking an entrepreneurial class puts this idea into practice by separating the skills by industry and providing support for all interests. This inclusivity strengthens the Institute’s philanthropic mission by welcoming diverse perspectives and skill sets. Intentional philanthropy requires multiple perspectives, and on a college campus, that is achieved by getting involved.
As I reflected on the discussion and event I attended, the biggest takeaway is that people are worth more than a program. People are the core of the Entrepreneurship Institute which makes it accessible to everyone. Whether to benefit, or learn from philanthropic practices, the skills to be gained from attending events or utilizing their space on campus can and will impact every part of life. These beliefs guide how the Institute directs time, talent, funding, and mentorship. As I reflect on these experiences, I am left with a strong sense of community that allows philanthropy to work meaningfully within the Institute. Not only a community on campus, but knowing that the positive experiences created in this space carries past graduation. With this, there is a pay-it-forward mentality cultivating that helps to keep the space running and serving future students. I encourage students to engage with the Entrepreneurship Institute at least once, as the resources they provide, whether through workshops, mentoring, or events, are grounded in actionable skills and supported by relationships that prioritize student growth academically, professionally, and personally. At the end of the day, the Institute reflects a value that should be integrated into all philanthropic practices. We need to invest in people, rather than programs.
This section summarizes readings and research related to a relevant topic within the student’s Pathway and connects them to larger patterns or themes.
Philanthropy is often framed as generosity, yet its outcomes depend less on the amount given and more on the relationship between those who give and those who receive. When giving lacks connection, accountability, or lived experience, even well funded efforts can unintentionally cause harm. Philanthropy raises a central question, what does it mean to have ethical giving and relationships between donors and recipients. While philanthropy is rooted in a love of humanity, modern systems of giving are frequently shaped by tax incentives, publicity, and donor control. This shift complicates the relational foundation philanthropy requires to function sustainably. Although not all donor motivations are harmful, patterns of power imbalance, mission creep, and disconnected giving suggests that recipients are often prioritized in philanthropic relationships. I want to argue that donor-recipient relationships in philanthropy are inherently imbalanced in ways that often prioritize donors over recipients. First, I want to examine the current state of philanthropic relationships and donor motivations. Second, I want to explore a real risk within philanthropic relationships that can harm social impact effectiveness. Finally, I want to highlight relational and community led best practices that promote ethical and sustainable philanthropy. I hope to conclude with optimism and hope for the state of philanthropy as it relates to the relationships in place.
When examining current donor-recipient relationships, a common concern is that recipients are not prioritized. A concern that donors are giving for the purpose of themselves through external benefits such as tax breaks or public recognition rather than a genuine connection to the cause. Although these donations can still be beneficial, the lack of relational investment can result in harmful contributions or derail the purpose of the donation. Research on donor motivation supports this concern. In a systemic review of charitable giving incentives, Chapman and Thai (2025) examine how self-benefiting incentives, such as tax deductions, influence donor behavior. In this study, the authors find that “giving is seen to be price elastic, meaning that tax incentives motivate giving: the greater the tax benefit, the more people give.” While these incentives increase participation, they can also reduce selflessness and weaken accountability to recipient communities. Chapman and Thai come to the conclusion that “self-benefiting incentives may crowd out intrinsic motivation” and therefore reduce generosity over time. When being driven by personal benefit, there is a failure to support long-term social change, even when financial contributions are substantial. While this method of giving reflects a negligent or disengaged approach to philanthropy, a more intentional and damaging practice can occur through mission creep.
Mission creep is defined as a shift in objectives during the course of a military campaign, often resulting in an unplanned commitment. When applied to social impact, this can take the form of financial contributions with strings attached that cause nonprofits to shift their goals to align with donor preferences. Although it is reasonable for donors to want to see and direct where their money is going to, donors without lived experience of the issues should not have complete control over a cause simply because they have financial power. As I’ve worked with nonprofits, the fear that they have with mission creep is becoming spread too thin due to commitments that stray away from the original goals of their work. Organizations like the English Skills Learning Center share that it is difficult sometimes for nonprofits to turn away funding because that is one of the key components to keeping the work alive and running. They share that careful time and consideration when reviewing grants is crucial to ensuring that it won’t take away from their purpose. And most importantly, building a trusting relationship with grantees is what allows organizations to maintain integrity. When trust and open communication are prioritized, nonprofits are better equipped to advocate for their mission, set boundaries with donors, and ensure that funding supports rather than reshapes their work. Leading to success stories like Best Friends Animal Society being a completely donor funded organization, with no need for government funding. This is because the individual donors are invested in the mission, a mission that hasn’t strayed away since its beginnings. Without this relational foundation, financial contributions risk undermining the very communities they are intended to serve, reinforcing the power imbalance that ethical philanthropy aims to dismantle.
So what is the solution? How do we move towards ethical philanthropy and away from potential harmful imbalances of power? The key to this door is in lived experience and collaboration strengthened by accountability. As emphasized in participatory grantmaking models, sustainable change occurs when communities most affected by an issue help shape funding decisions and processes. Borealis Philanthropy is looking to make this a reality with their Movement-Defined Learning Project. They created Liberatory Learning Labs as a space “where organization leaders could come together and co-create new ways to measure impact” (Borealis Philanthropy, 2024). Although this seems to be an ongoing process in creating a new way to have ethical philanthropy within organizations, it is a step, whether it fails or not, to understand what is needed to continue practicing philanthropy to its fullest. Feedback to Borealis’ Movement-Defined Learning Project shared that “When communities engaged by organization have space to share authentically without filters or fear, the work of the organization is strengthened as is the collaboration with foundations as it directly forms dynamic conversations about need, landscape, and possibility” (Borealis Philanthropy, 2024). The optimism reflected in the response suggests that ethical philanthropy is not an abstract goal, but an achievable model when rooted in active-listening, accountability, and collaboration. While initiatives like the Movement-Defined Learning Project are still evolving, they demonstrate that when power is shared, philanthropy can move closer to lasting change, and I am excited to see this blossom within other organizations.
There is so much information, perspectives, and tools to consider when trying to understand what it means to have ethical giving. Through this reflection of current practices in philanthropy, patterns have emerged that reveal how donor motivations and harmful power imbalances, such as mission creep, can undermine the communities philanthropy seeks to support. These dynamics reinforce the concern that philanthropy will fail if there is not intentional relationships between donors and recipients. At the same time, this exploration has also shown me a hopeful path forward. Models rooted in lived experience show that philanthropy does not have to be defined by one-sided relationships. These approaches reaffirm that ethical giving is not measured solely by the materialness of donations, but by the quality of relationships it supports. Ethical philanthropy is not a one-and-done achievement, but an ongoing practice that requires continuous listening, reflection, and adaptability. Contributions backed by trusting relationships will always triumph over giving for the feeling of a warm glow. Relationships are the ultimate goal of philanthropy. If it is necessary for philanthropy to have people-to-people conversations, it can only be strengthened if there is a love for the well-being of one another.
Community Resources
This section highlights helpful tools or guides that support real-world application of the Pathway.
The Entrepreneurship Institute is an amazing resource that services Utah Valley University students directly. It is located in the Keller Building room 102 and is the host to a variety of skills workshops, mentoring, and ultimately a community. The best way to start getting involved is just to show up! Using their space to study with friends, meeting the people working at the Institute, and attending events will only deepen your community network. They invest in the people it’s serving, not the program. It is a safe place to ask questions and receive support. Although it may seem like it is exclusive to the business school, or to future entrepreneurs, these tools they offer are accessible to anyone. Even if you don’t plan on starting a business, by attending the skills workshops they put on, you can learn valuable skills that can translate to your own goals and path in life. They are grounded in the lived experience of the students ensuring that their perspectives shape how they run both the Entrepreneurship Club and the Institute itself. It is a space of mutual benefit and has the ability to problem solve across diverse communities and majors. Even if you don’t consider yourself a philanthropist, philanthropy is relationships, and you can be a direct recipient of those practices by participating with the Entrepreneurship Institute.
The Trust-Based Philanthropy Project is a building block in developing an understanding of what it means to “flip the script on conventional philanthropy.” It is power-conscious as it recognizes the power imbalances that are inherently a part of philanthropy. It seeks to shift power from funders to the communities by centering relationships. It argues that there can be tunnel vision when focusing only on grantmaking tactics, and presents that the values of culture, structure, practice, and leadership guides trust in philanthropy. The guide serves as a reflection and planning tool for grantmakers, however, it can be put into practice by anyone and I encourage using the Trust-Based Philanthropy Project as a way to system-approach social issues that are near to you. It encourages taking the time to embrace learning and mistakes as ways to grow within relationships and show up everyday in individual giving. In addition to its core values, it offers tools on how to get started with trust-based philanthropy. Offering resources such as fundamental learning, webinars, self-reflection activities, and learning from the lived experience of foundation leaders. Sources like this are what make philanthropy not a scary topic, it allows for open and clear communication and I’d like to encourage that if you use this resource to discuss it with a friend, coworker, or family to start building those relationships with a philanthropic mindset.
The Philanthropy Toolkit is a comprehensive manual on how to get involved within philanthropy. It includes multiple modules all with a different emphasis, but the most important one to make philanthropy a topic that is approachable is their “finding your focus areas.” It includes three steps on how to reach proactive philanthropy in practice: clarify your motivations and values, narrow your focus areas, and consider your time, talent, and social ties. What has really stood out to me about this source is it conveys the theme that the key to effective philanthropy is having clear intent behind where you are putting your time, talent, and resources. It answers the question of “Where do I even begin?” It gives clear activities that allow for self reflection and zero judgment that creates a practice of being locally grounded. It plays into the strengths and capacity of the community to begin those steps towards systems-level change. As I engaged with this resource I was able to understand what values guide me in the choices I make as I brainstorm where I want to focus my giving efforts. It reassured me that I don’t have to financially contribute to engage in philanthropy, the toolkit acknowledged that for some, philanthropy can just be your time and talent through volunteering. On an individual level, this resource takes the time and listens to how you want to engage, not how it expects you to engage.
This section offers closing reflections and invites readers to consider how they can apply the insights in their own lives and communities.
As I’ve navigated this month’s memo through the lens of philanthropy it has been quite a struggle for me. Not to say that in a negative way, but to highlight that the reason I have been able to engage in this work has been the relationships I have built within this community. Whenever I have begun a project in the realm of philanthropy I always look back at the core that this work expresses a love for humanity. Not a love for monetary value, not a love for self, but a love for the relationships that we carry with one another. Throughout my discussions with the Entrepreneurship Institute, my research into relationships within philanthropy, and finding sources that promote ethical giving, I find that each one exists in relation to each other. All stories rely on the relationships built between donors and recipients, relationships built between organizations and communities. As I’ve said before, this isn’t a one-and-done ordeal, it is always evolving. I’ve seen this firsthand as I’ve worked for months with different nonprofits and community members, and all share the need for relationships to support long lasting change.
The goal I had set out when I began writing this was to create a sense of hope and optimism and specifically create an inspiration to start practicing philanthropy. Often we see philanthropy as the end product, as the large sum of money being donated to a nonprofit. We often overlook what it takes to get to that point. You can’t reach the roof without first taking the stairs or the elevator past all of the floors of a building. It begins with us committing time and energy to starting and strengthening relationships. From there we have to ground ourselves in the lived experiences of those we are creating trust with through volunteering and active-listening. Only after we understand the core issue and the people at the heart of it can we meaningfully give our time, talent, and resources to create a lasting impact. My challenge for you as the reader is to open the door to philanthropy. Attend a community event that explores issues and topics close to you. From that event, meet with at least one person and begin to start a conversation about their connection and experiences. This may look like, for Utah Valley University students, finding a group on campus that aligns with your values and aspirations and attending those events. Take the time to invest in the people involved in those groups and often you will find that philanthropy will emerge.
Relationships do not exist because of philanthropy. Philanthropy comes from relationships. A love for humanity does not come from unintentional or misguided support. Social change comes from selflessness and an understanding of one another. I encourage you to be intentional with how you interact with your community when advocating for social change in all issues and support your community even when the issues may not pertain to you. How is society supposed to benefit when one group is falling down and not being helped back up? Philanthropy can be a solution to getting someone back on their feet, but it does not properly function without first cultivating relationships.
