“Why don’t you just partner with more non-profits or schools?”
This is a question that friends and peers from abroad often ask me when I share our work. It’s a logical question, rooted in an ecosystem where such partnerships are abundant and fruitful.
To answer it, however, I need to invite you on a run with me through the unique landscape we operate in. From the surface, it looks like one kind of race. But the real challenges, the ones that truly define our work, lie deep beneath the surface, like an iceberg.
This is a story about that iceberg.
The Tip of the Iceberg: A Gap in Access and Growth
What is immediately visible is a stark contradiction. On one hand, Chinese youth have a tremendous, growing demand for meaningful service opportunities. They are not looking for simple, token activities; they crave experiences where they can apply their skills, receive professional guidance, and feel a real sense of personal development.
On the other hand, the supply is scarce and often shallow. Less than a quarter of middle school students have ever had the chance to participate. This creates a frustrating gap of access. And for the few who do participate, the experience often leads to a second, more subtle problem: a sense of vague, unarticulated growth. They are left feeling that they did something good, but without a clear language to understand how they grew, the educational value is lost.
Below the Waterline: A Collective System Mismatch
Why does this gap exist? Because the three main pillars that should support youth engagement—nonprofits, schools, and families—are all facing their own profound challenges.
1、The Nonprofits: Capable in Service, but Lacking in Education
China’s nonprofit sector is young. Many organizations, for valid reasons of risk and management, do not accept volunteers under 18. Even those who are willing face a core competency mismatch. Their expertise lies in delivering vital social services, not in pedagogy.
This isn’t a critique, but a reality of the ecosystem; while they are invaluable partners in addressing social issues, they are often not equipped to be educational designers for youth. For instance, we’ve seen a leading NGO, whose service work is impeccable, struggle to sustain a program in a school because their staff found it challenging to translate their deep field experience into an engaging curriculum for students.
2、The Schools: Willing in Spirit, but Unprepared in Practice.
Schools should be the natural hub for this work. In our journey, this was our most significant lesson. In 2018, we poured our hearts into a year-long philanthropy course at a public middle school. The principal loved it, and the students were deeply engaged. Our vision was that the school’s own teachers would eventually take it over. When the time came, they politely declined. “We can’t teach this,” they told us. “We’ve never done it ourselves.”
Their honesty was illuminating. The vast majority of mainstream educators in China grew up with almost no exposure to community service themselves. Asking them to guide students through this experiential process is like asking someone who has never swum to teach swimming.
- The Families: Hopeful in Aspiration, but Lost for Guidance.
- Parents, too, see the value. They hope these experiences will teach their children gratitude and character. But lacking their own experience, they often feel just as lost as the teachers, unsure how to find meaningful opportunities or guide their children’s reflections.
The Deep Currents: The Systemic Roots
What created this system-wide mismatch? Here, we reach the deepest and most powerful forces shaping our work.
- A Disrupted Culture of Giving.
- Philanthropy is not new to China; the Confucian concept of benevolence (仁) is ancient. However, the country’s modern history created a profound disruption.
After 1949, the state assumed responsibility for all social welfare, and philanthropy as a civil act was discontinued for decades. It wasn’t until the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake that public participation was reawakened on a national scale. This means several generations—including today’s leaders, educators, and parents—grew up in an environment where civic engagement was not a part of their formative experience. This has led to a low-trust environment where public imagination is often limited to seeing philanthropy as merely donating money to disaster relief.
Unlike in the U.S., where 70% of donations come from individuals, in China, that number is reversed, with the majority coming from corporations and the government. This lack of a broad, individual-giving culture means non-profits are not incentivized to engage the public, including their children, creating a cycle of disconnection.
- The Constraints of the Education System.
- China’s education system is in a state of transition. While holistic development (素养教育) is a national priority, the deep-rooted culture of high-stakes exams remains dominant. The system is still new to designing for and assessing “soft” or non-explicit competencies like empathy and civic responsibility. This is compounded by a prevalent mindset: the belief that “doing good deeds automatically leads to growth.” There is not yet a widespread understanding that the growth a child gains from a service experience needs to be as intentionally designed, guided, and reflected upon as a lesson in mathematics.
The Finish Line & The Invitation
This landscape—the visible gap in opportunity, the systemic failure of providers, and the deep cultural and educational roots—is why this work can feel like a lonely, long-distance run. We cannot simply follow a well-trodden path or import a model that works elsewhere. We must build the road as we run, inventing solutions tailored to our specific context.
It is this very challenge that gave birth to our Public Advocacy model and our Purpose Framework. They were not designed in a vacuum; they were forged in the fires of these systemic constraints.
This landscape—the visible gap, the systemic mismatch of providers, and the deep cultural and educational roots—is why this work can feel like a lonely, long-distance run. We cannot simply follow a well-trodden path or import a model that works elsewhere. We must build the road as we run. It is this very challenge that gave birth to our Public Advocacy model and our Purpose Framework.
They were not designed in a vacuum; they were forged in the fires of these systemic constraints, representing our most earnest attempt to offer a viable path forward.
Let’s talk.