What Are We Thinking?

I was reminded recently of the “fine line” that we walk in philanthropy as it pertains to expectations of grantees. Also, we sometimes send mixed messages to those seeking funds. Let me explain. Two questions that most funders ask potential grantees are “what is your sustainability plan?” and “how do you intend to fund this project/program beyond this grant?” In isolation, these questions are relevant and fair. Foundation’s don’t want to fund something that is going to have a short life span and they don’t want to be “on the hook” for a long-term financial commitment to organizations they fund, thus the significance of these questions.

But what are the results in the relationship between grantee and funder if the grantee does or does not reach sustainability as the funder expects? Good question. Does the funder let the program die because they are unwilling to put up additional funding to get a program to sustainability even if it takes longer than expected? Another good question: do they walk away from a grantee that is a high achiever, reaches success with the grant funds and is sustained, but needs additional funding to take the program further?
Here is what I think? Funders, in large part, are fundamentally unrealistic about their expectations around sustainability. That is not to say that the questions should not be asked, but the reality is that nine times out of ten an organization is not going to be able to answer that question with certainty that they will or will not be able to sustain themselves following the grant award period. There are just too many variables that make the answers to the questions unachievable unless there is a funding stream that is ongoing, which is not the case for most nonprofits. Individual and corporate donors come and go, grant funding has a short life, special events take time and energy and wills and bequests happen infrequently.

Yes, foundations must be good stewards of their resources and they must operate within certain guidelines to be fair and accountable. But arbitrary time limits for grant funding and high expectations for sustainability is not helping, but rather hurting the very nonprofits that funders intend to help. So, if funders truly want to get the biggest bang for their buck then they need to consider some flexibility in decision-making and more realistic expectations around results, particularly as it applies to sustainability. During this economy, more nonprofits are fighting to survive than ever before. We, in the foundation business are investors; investors during good times and bad times. If we want a realistic return on that investment then we need to employ some alternative investment strategies. These include: a longer commitment for funding, more flexibility for those who can’t promise sustainability and let’s not punish those who have sustained themselves either.

The goal for nonprofits is to succeed with their mission and survive this difficult economy. We, in philanthropy, should not be obstacles toward achieving those goals but a catalyst for reaching those goals. This starts with a little self reflection about our processes and procedures, expectations and, yes, the questions we ask. If we can do that, then more realistic outcomes can be attained and our relationship with grantees will be stronger because they will know that we understand them better.


Tom Keith is the president of the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina

Counting People Counts for South Carolina

The year 2010 is an important one as it pertains to gathering census data. The recession has depleted many of the government resources necessary to adequately prepare and implement the process of collecting data. Many funders around the country have invested resources to supplement the government’s efforts. For example, the California Endowment gave more than $4 million to nonprofit groups working to draw attention to the census in that state.

Although South Carolina is significantly smaller than California the issues around identifying and effectively collecting census data are the same, if not worse. In poor areas of the state and many of our minority communities, it appears more difficult to gather data and to get individuals to participate. For example, the growing Hispanic population in the state, not only has language barrier issue, but also the need for confidentiality. It is important that the census is protective of undocumented immigrants and that an awareness campaign is developed to let individuals know that being counted will not be a risk to them in any way, shape or form.

Attention must also be given to our large homeless population in our more populated cities around South Carolina. Alternative census locations need to be aimed towards food banks, homeless shelters, free medical clinics and other places where the homeless population is likely to frequent. It is also important that the census representatives are inclusive of the population they are attempting to identify and gather information. In other words, the census staff needs to be representative of the ethnic composition of the communities and neighborhoods where they will be working. These workers need to be able to “speak the language” and be trusted messengers in the data gathering process. Otherwise, many individuals will disappear and not be counted, which could have an adverse affect on our state’s resources and federal funding to adequately serve our actual population.

Some estimates suggest that nearly 10% of South Carolina’s true population went uncounted in 2000 which equates to nearly 400,000 people. That represents a huge gap between actual and collected data in the state. We must invest in the right tools and the right strategy to collect accurate census data this time. If not, then all South Carolinians will suffer in the long run. It will mean fewer dollars to support our state which has already been decimated by a poor economy and huge budget shortfalls.

Tom Keith is the president of the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina