Profiles in Mentoring: Patricia Snell Herzog on Youth Philanthropy and Civic Growth
Patricia Snell Herzog serves as the Melvin Simon Chair and Associate Professor of Philanthropic Studies at Indiana University’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. Her research spans the intersections of data analytics, philanthropy, and civic behavior — including topics like philanthropy analytics, data-informed decision making, youth and emerging adult giving, organizational contexts, and how social supports shape voluntary engagement. We recently had the opportunity of speaking with Dr. Herzog on unequal outcomes in youth philanthropy, as explored in her report Youth Philanthropy: Studying Potential for Inequalities in Outcomes, found here on The Chronicle of Evidence-Based Mentoring!
Chronicle (C): What inspired you to explore youth philanthropy, and how did your interest in this topic develop over time?
Patricia Snell Herzog (PSH): Young people sometimes get a bad rap. But I have long found youth fascinating, and I am especially intrigued by generational changes in voluntary action. Plus, research consistently shows the importance of mentors as a support in the lives of young people. With this knowledge, I was inspired by the principles of community engaged research to invest the fruits of research into growing community resources, and to honor the wisdom of community organizations as important partners in the research process. This led to my collaboration with nonprofit organizations that engage mentors to support youth in engaging in philanthropy. With all the bad news and problem naming in the world, it is exciting to study what is going well: caring young people seeking to improve themselves, each other, and their communities.
C: What did your study reveal about which youth participants benefited most from philanthropy programs, and what surprised you most in the findings?
PSH: With all the attention lately to demographic differences, what surprised us most about the findings are that the youth outcomes did not differ significantly by gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, parental marital status, or even technology use. Student research assistants were skeptical at first about whether a program could work for many varieties of young people, and across different locations throughout the US. Beyond knowing the benefits of high impact practices in teaching and learning, it was incredible to be on their learning journey as students applied the tools of research and data analysis to see with their own eyes how the program supports youth from all walks of life. Interestingly, the differences were instead social. Youth participants who benefited most were more comfortable in social settings, confident in making decisions, had close relationships with parents, and engaged in other voluntary organizations. This highlights the importance of fostering relational support amid the process of delivering youth programming. Mentors are crucial social supports.
C: Looking ahead, what future directions do you see for research or practice in youth philanthropy, and how might this work continue to evolve?
PSH: For future directions, I would love to see youth philanthropy programs expand to more cities and rural areas around the US, and I am excited that several international graduate students are optimistic about scaling youth philanthropy to other countries. We will continue to study this youth philanthropy program as it graduates more young people, and I have hopes that philanthropic funders will invest more in youth philanthropy, and mentoring programs generally, to channel their qualms about society into productive strategies for the future.
Read the full paper here
