Understanding Who We Are; It's Complicated

The word “philanthropy” can have a different meaning depending on where you live and what a particular foundation looks like, which some believe is the biggest problem with philanthropy today. Philanthropy seems often self-indulged and not truly committed to finding new and innovative ways to address social problems at the grassroots level. I will also suggest that some funders I have met over the years have developed a cavalier attitude when it comes to their foundation’s direction and purpose. In their minds, they know what’s best for their community and it’s certainly their money to invest how and where they want.

Furthermore, we, as funders, have lofty expectations of those we fund and often apply a set of rules and expectations that are more about process and procedure instead of quality, content or community change. I deplore bureaucracies that force potential grantees to jump through enormous hoops just to get their application reviewed. We need to be spending more time and energy not setting up superfluous rules and guidelines but rather looking for more effective ways to engage and understand disadvantaged individuals and families. It makes far more sense to invest our resources in better defining the significant challenges facing those living in poverty along with understanding what their specific priorities are so they can live more productive lives. We also need their ongoing thoughts and input so our foundations’ decision making is grounded in real life issues and awareness.

Social change, to me, is far less about money and far more about attitude, clarity of purpose, influence and education. We often get caught in the money trap but, quite frankly, private philanthropy’s wealth is simply “a drop in the bucket” compared to the societal needs for underserved communities today.

More involvement and input from those we want to help is at the top of our list at the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina. It has to be. If not, we are making decisions in a vacuum that may be well-intended but often end up leaving important stakeholders out of the equation. I am not just talking about agency input but individual “client” input: the homeless, clients of the food banks, the unemployed, the children of single parents, students in poor school districts, families without access to health care, seniors without transportation, etc. It is a simple concept but it is also a fundamental shift for philanthropy. It is like asking a patient, “Where do you hurt?” rather than coming up with a diagnosis based on what you, the doctor, observes and thinks.

The true measure of social change will be viewed through many different lenses and measured differently by people in the field. However, significant change starts from the ground floor and works up; in the classroom, waiting in line for food or shelter, teen parenting, father absence, etc. Let’s not focus our energy solely on the process but rather on understanding and responding to those who really know how they feel. It is the right prescription for today’s philanthropic ills.

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

Lt. Governor Needs to Understand Before Generalizing

A recent statement by our state’s Lt. Governor regarding government assistance has caused me to wonder about how we view other individuals with less means in our society. I can assure you that truly understanding poverty in South Carolina cannot be passed off with a sweeping generalization about poor people. It certainly cannot be better understood by using a comparison of these individuals to stray animals. The challenges and barriers facing the poor in South Carolina is both crosscutting and extremely complicated. Often times, people and even leaders, want to stereotype others into certain categories without examining all of the real facts.

Poor people in our state are faced with a multitude of challenges each day. A parent, and often a single parent, may be working multiple jobs to keep the family afloat. To assume that by not attending a parent-teacher conference, they are not interested in their child’s wellbeing is not a fair assumption. Furthermore, if you plan to punish a family because a parent does not attend such a meeting by taking away subsidies for their children to eat, what have you accomplished? You sure haven’t helped the child. We have a split society in South Carolina- “the haves and the have not’s”. It is pretty easy for those of us who have steady incomes and positions of influence to pass judgment on the other half of society.

We know where our next meal is coming from and we know that there will be a roof over our head tonight. What we don’t know are the obstacles a parent living in poverty may face. Do they have access to transportation? Do they have adequate access to information or communication? The fact of the matter is that every child that attends public schools receives some level of support from the tax payer. Some school districts fair better than others and therefore some children fair better than others. Let’s not make rash generalizations about people living in poverty unless “we have walked in their shoes” and we have all the facts.

We should be spending our time and energy debating how we are going to help our poor communities get a fair education for their children, more job training and job opportunities for their citizens and therefore, more people contributing in a positive way to our society as a whole. I would much rather spend our time focusing on opportunities and possibilities than establishing additional barriers for the already marginalized segment of South Carolina’s population.


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

This time in January, is a time of celebration, a time of recognition and a time of reflection. We celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A man who changed the world while he was alive and his words and actions have helped change the world since his death.

We don’t have to necessarily be religious to appreciate Dr. King’s teachings. Now there is no question that his thoughts and words are grounded in his faith. One of the things that I have learned through hearing and reading Dr. King’s words is an ongoing message of encouragement. He was able to take people that felt hopeless and give them hope. He was not a man of violence but he was willing to stand firm on his beliefs of what was just and what was fair and what was equal, and then suffer the consequences of that action.

I recently visited the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis where Dr. King was assassinated. It was a surreal experience for me. The hotel has been made into a shrine for him but also for others who were willing to stand up for civil rights and for fairness. I stood in a replica of the bus where Rosa Parks refused to move. I saw pictures and signs of people who had been made to feel less than equal. Signs that pointed one color of skin to one bathroom and another color of skin to a different bathroom. Signs that allowed one color to sit in the main viewing area of a movie theatre and a sign that said if your skin was a certain color, then you must go up into the balcony away from others.

It gave me perspective and it continues to give me empathy and understanding.

It has been over 40 years since Dr. Martin Luther King was killed in Memphis. And, as I prepared this piece, I asked myself two questions: What has not changed and what has changed since Dr. King’s death?

First, what has not changed:

• Our public education system in poor communities in South Carolina still ranks near the bottom in the United States. It ranks near the bottom in qualified and competent teachers, in student performance and―first and foremost―in funds available to support those teachers and students. Our future generation of young people will have significant limitations unless we make education a priority in our state, and not just in the wealthy communities, but all communities. In the lawsuit waged between the Corridor of Shame Counties and the State of South Carolina, a small bit of progress was made but overall I was ashamed of our state’s response. Do you mean to tell me that you can be satisfied that we are offering our young people in poor counties a minimally adequate education. All this occurring in buildings that were built over 100 years ago without proper heat, plumbing or other basic necessities. I believe that very little progress has been made in our public educational system in poor communities in the last 40 years.

• Health care. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am with the state of health care, health access and health coverage in this country. It is a colossal problem that we continue to ignore and our leaders continue to base their decisions on the influence of big insurance companies and drug companies. Every single person in this country should be entitled to health care and not have to put themselves or their families at risk because of it. We must have a system in place that emphasizes prevention, easy access to providers and ongoing treatment and coverage regardless of the age or financial position a person finds themselves in.

• Jobs. There is such a disparity in jobs between the haves and the have nots that it is almost comical. We continue to provide minimal opportunities for education and therefore hamstring our poorer populations to do basic jobs that do not afford them growth or to realistically take care of their families. We must embrace and push job training and create job opportunities for the poor. If not, we are contributing to a systemic problem that fosters dependency on government with very few options otherwise. We say we have a free market society but it is not a free market for those that don’t have the education or resources to truly participate. There is a serious imbalance that needs to be addressed.

To my second question, What has changed:

I would say that we have more people invested than ever before. We had a national movement that elected Barack Obama President. We have more people volunteering in our nonprofit sector than ever before. We have after school tutoring programs, job training programs, nursing programs in rural areas, fatherhood programs, access to justice initiatives and leadership development programs for our youth.

I have seen progress. Is it world-changing progress? No, but it is progress.

We, living and working in communities, have the same opportunities to make a difference or invest in change that Dr. Martin Luther King had more than 40 years ago. We see the injustices in education, health care and jobs. We, in the private sector, can help and are helping.

South Carolina has its problems but so does every other state in our country. If South Carolina is going to succeed, then every one of its citizens must have an opportunity to succeed. If South Carolina is going to improve then racial divides must be broken and our state must look at each other as fellow South Carolinians with common purpose and pride.

If Dr. King were alive today, I think he would be disappointed in a lot of things. I also believe he would be proud of a lot of things. He would be proud of our spirit. He would be proud of our willingness to find new ways to help others and he would be proud that we, as private citizens, are willing and able to take ownership in the needed changes in our state and communities and help lead that charge.

So, I challenge each of you today to not live in a world that is secure and privileged but live in a world that is sensitive and empathetic. Don’t just watch as things occur but participate. Don’t just care but act. Don’t just breathe life but live life. The outcome may seem simple but it could be monumental. Wouldn’t it be wonderful that after all is said and done, we could look at our fellow citizens and friends; black, white, Christian or non-Christian, democrat or republican, male or female, rich or poor and we can say, “Job well done, my neighbor and friend, job well done.”

God bless you all.

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

How full is the glass?

I had a friend once tell me that when he saw a certain person on the street, he did his very best to avoid them. He would even cross to the other side of the street. I asked, “why?” and he said, “because I can be having the best day of my life and then I start talking with that person and they let the air right out of the balloon and I become instantly depressed.” I thought “wow” and what a way to be labeled by somebody else. Unfortunately, it is true with many people.

I have to watch myself because if you observe the bleak picture being painted for us on the news, it can be pretty depressing. I have this recurring thought of being in a long line of hundreds of people waiting for soup or having to give up my house and move in with my older brother. These are not good thoughts.

Then I think about all those people who have far less than me, and yet they don’t complain about anything. They are so happy with the simplest things in life. Some of the most unselfish, caring and spiritual people with the best attitudes I have ever met are people with modest means. They are not trying to “keep up with the Jones” or impress anyone at all. They are who they are and believe what they believe and that is just fine with them. It just amazes me how many that happens so many times.

So, even in the worst of times, I am developing a better attitude about things. I am not going to complain about my 50-something back, or how cold it is, or how the price of something has gone up or how bad the driver is in front of me. I am going to take the high road just like a lot of the people who really have something to complain about but don’t.

I once watched a speaker from Chicago pour tea into a 12-ounce glass halfway. He looked at it and said, “It is up to you how you interpret the glass of tea. It is either half empty or half full.” Personally, I am voting for “half full” from now on. It just seems much easier to me and I bet I will be a lot happier too. So, have a great day, week, month, 2010 and life! Things look really great to me.


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

Thinking About the Year End

As we approach the end of the calendar year, there is hopefulness among charitable organizations that something good is going to happen. There is a hope that people will feel more benevolent during the holiday season and give money. They recognize that the first 11 months of 2009 have been far less successful than anticipated. Organizations are “holding out hope” that this final month of the year will “pay off” financially. Additional optimism occurs when charities think about donors who need a tax break and will give generously to their organization.

What a wonderful fantasy they are having. I don’t think there is much chance this will happen in December 2009. Why? Well, most people are either struggling to make ends meet (average incomes), need assistance from others to survive (below average incomes) or lost 55% of their portfolio in the stock market (higher incomes). Those who lost money are trying to recover those funds and are worried about their own future retirement possibilities. Any of these three scenarios does not bode well for charities this year end.

The good news; I believe, that 2010 will be a far better year for all charities. I truly believe we have weathered a very tough storm and that we can begin repairing our organizations next year. Charitable giving will improve in 2010 and it will improve in the business, grant making and individual/private sectors. So, don’t expect a huge windfall in December, it likely won’t come. Do expect more funds and better circumstances for all of next year. I really think help from generous supporters is just around the corner and better times are ahead for charities.

Happy Holidays to All.

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

It's Time to Remove South Carolina's Handicap: Why TANF Reauthorization is Crucial

How much is a child in South Carolina worth? Not nearly as much as a child in Connecticut according to the federal program designed to alleviate poverty. The federal government provides the state of Connecticut with $1,052 a year for each child in poverty. The same federal fund values poor children in South Carolina at $179 per child. And it’s not just in South Carolina; it seems children throughout the South are worth less than their counterparts in other parts of the nation.

Apart from our underfunded school systems or our high unemployment rates, federal welfare reform legislation hinders the many southern states like South Carolina from achieving its desired results. South Carolina gets less federal money to lift families out of poverty than almost any other state.

Before welfare was reformed in 1996, funds were allocated based on a formula which required states to provide matching dollars to draw down federal funds. Thus, states with higher per capita incomes, and therefore a higher tax base, could draw down more federal funding. States with small tax bases, like South Carolina, had few dollars to invest and, therefore, got few dollars back.

When welfare reform was passed, a new program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) was established. The goal of TANF is to move families from welfare to work. To achieve this, these families receive assistance in job training and job skills and assistance to reduce the barriers they face in obtaining and maintaining employment, like transportation and childcare. Most of South Carolina’s families receiving TANF assistance are single parents with one or two children. Currently our state has only enough funds to serve 25% of the families eligible for childcare assistance. And it has even fewer dollars to address a family’s need for transportation and training.

The most difficult part of this new welfare reform bill was figuring out how to distribute the block grant to states. Naturally, high-income states sought to continue getting the big federal dollars they received under the old program, while low-income states desired a new formula based on the number of families in poverty living in each state. This time, like many times before, the high-income states, often with larger delegations, won the fight and received the lion’s share of the money. Federal funds were allocated to states based on the average amount of funds received for the prior three-year period, which was under the old program. Low-income states were left with the task of implementing new programs and new federal requirements with very little money.

Some poor states were thrown a bone, “a supplemental payment,” in exchange for their votes to pass the welfare reform legislation. Seventeen states qualified for this bone, because their level of spending per poor person was less than 35% of the national average or they had more than a 10% increase in population from 1990 through 1994. With spending per poor person at 37.66% of the national average and only a 5% increase in population during the given time period, South Carolina just missed the mark to receive supplemental funding.

What’s more, when the supplemental funding was formed, it was frozen so that no other states could be added and the original seventeen would not lose the funding. Thus, even though a state like South Carolina qualified for supplemental funding the second year, it could not receive the additional funding. In fact, South Carolina was the only state in deep poverty that did not get any extra help. States like Kentucky, South Carolina and Virginia were held to the same federal requirements, which cost a lot more, as every other state, and were given less money with which to meet those requirements.

The law that created welfare reform, the TANF Act, is up for reauthorization next year. States are planning to ask Congress to take a look at the funding for the program and add some new dollars to make up for the buying power lost to inflation over the past 13 years. Based on the consumer-priced index, this would be approximately an additional $5 billion nationally. The new money needs to be distributed using a new formula - one based on poverty. A formula that equalizes the payments to states based on the percentage of each state’s population living in poverty would benefit 33 of the 50 states, the majority of states. It would target federal dollars where they are most needed - to states with high poverty. And South Carolina would receive a fair and equal share of the new money.

Over the last 13 years, it is estimated that South Carolina has lost approximately $150 million in TANF funding. This is money that did not go to South Carolina families moving from poverty to self sufficiency. If the amount of funding is increased using the consumer-priced index South Carolina would receive $32 million under the current formula. The amount would increase to $93 million if funds were distributed using the suggested new formula based on need. A formula based on poverty leads to an additional $61 million. This would make a significant impact on our state, and it’s now time to get our fair share of funding.

The Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina envisions families in South Carolina with the resources to live out of poverty. The current funding is based on the amount a state received 13 years ago under a different program. It is an injustice to continue to use this formula, as states with the largest number of citizens in poverty will receive the smallest amount of funding. As a Foundation we feel that we must bring this to light and fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. Our state has been short-changed in TANF funding and we feel that it is time for South Carolina to receive its fair share.

The old money ($16 billion) would still use the old formula that allots for more funding for high-income states that can draw down more federal funding. Everyone wins. Everyone gets more money. TANF is designed for people out of work, and with the current economy, now is the time for Congress to reauthorize TANF.

A formula based on poverty best matches the original intent of the TANF legislation, and is the most unbiased way to allocate new federal funds. The Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina is planning to do all that we can to make sure South Carolina and other southern states get an equitable share of any new TANF funding. We want to make sure Congress gets it right this time, so that South Carolina no longer has to work under a handicap. Just think of what an additional $93 million for South Carolina’s low-income families would mean.


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

An Important Faith-Based Discussion

Dr. Fred Smith, a nationally recognized Theologian, will visit Columbia next month to speak. This is not the first trip Dr. Smith has made in correlation with the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina. He came to South Carolina in 2001 to help the Foundation celebrate the Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine’s 150 year anniversary.

The Foundation, in conjunction with the United Way of the Midlands, will welcome Dr. Smith again. We will assemble several faith-based leaders in the Columbia area to discuss several important issues. The entire premise for the discussion is about the ever changing demand and expectations for faith-based organizations in community building.

It was not too long ago that churches, synagogues and other religious facilities were mainly focused on their congregations with limited outreach. Things are very different today. The faith-based sector finds themselves invested in a variety of activities and purposes that have traditionally been carried out by nonprofit organizations. There are soup kitchens, after school programs, reading recovery programs, teen pregnancy prevention efforts, fatherhood related activities, job training programs, self help and self esteem programs, food banks, clothing closets and an array of other programs far too numerous to mention.

This all happened for a reason. When welfare reform took place in the mid 1990’s a lot of government related services went by the wayside. Religious groups had to fill the gap. They have done the best they can with little training and limited resources. Dr. Fred Smith will ask the how question to faith-based leaders. How can we in the faith community work together to impact our community both from a human capital and financial perspective? Should more of an effort be made to focus on one area or neighborhood to maximize impact? Are we looking around to make sure that what we are doing is not duplicative or that we are not missing the involvement of another faith entity that could strengthen our efforts?

These are very compelling questions and should result in a lively discussion by area faith leaders. There are no easy answers to solving community problems. We are all well intended and hopeful of impact and success. I am very thankful that we are going to have this type of discussion. Religious leaders are so important to our community and our society and the role their institutions play now and in the future is critical to community improvement.


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