Leaders of the Future Must have Different Skills

It is time for baby boomers to face the fact that our time is running out in the work force. Unless, we plan to work until we are 80, then our years are dwindling quickly and, sooner than later, we will be gone. You might ask, “so what?” and that is precisely why I write this.

I believe there is going to be a gaping hole between current leadership in the philanthropic world and the next group of leaders. Why? Because we don’t really have a plan in place to truly prepare the next group of leaders, and the skills and abilities needed for the next generation of leaders is going to be vastly different than those we exercise today.

Reflecting on when I first started with the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina back in the mid-90s, I think about how we only had one computer in the entire office and it belonged to the secretary. Everything was copied and filed manually. We still used an electric typewriter for goodness sakes! We transformed in the past 15 years and will continue to evolve in the next 15 years with new and innovative ways to operate. Information technology, communications, social media, etc. is at an accelerated pace.

Information technology will be the single most important force that will drive philanthropy over the next two decades. I think about the goals of the Sisters of Charity Foundation in the coming years. We will utilize technology to teach and train hundreds more nonprofit practitioners than ever before. We will communicate and inform through mediums that have not be used before. We will report and share findings in exciting new ways. We will be able to take the Foundation office with us no matter where we go. Everything will be a click away.

The next generation leaders must be willing and able to embrace this reality and treat it as an opportunity. We have a chance to make philanthropy more efficient, more informative and with better and more definable results. This may also change staffing patterns and the role of staff. Our future leaders will be able to utilize new tools and analyze old methods to improve the organization’s overall effectiveness both internally and externally. There is no prescriptive CEO manual that we can hand to the next generation of leaders. It is not available and it shouldn’t be. To me, it will come down to a select group of people that are high energy yet compassionate, mission-driven, flexible, innovative and technologically savvy.

People are at the heart of our work in philanthropy and that should never change. However, doing business in 2025 is going to be a whole new ballgame. I hope I am still alive to see these leaders in action. It will be as invigorating and exciting as anything you could ever imagine and I think the opportunities are endless. Oh, if only I was age 35 again!

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

Research Through Listening

I recently visited a small rural community in South Carolina, and passed a homeless young woman sitting in her car on a side street. I learned that during the long, cold winter nights, she sleeps bundled up with in blankets. When it is too cold for her body to bear, she turns her car on―in desperation―to generate a little extra heat. As I entered the building across the street from her parked car, she discretely moved her vehicle farther down the street as not to attract any further attention.

Although she hoped to be “invisible,” her presence over the past few weeks had already been noticed by the local community pastor. Realizing her needs, he enlisted a community member to approach her car and compassionately inquire about her well-being, “Are you okay? It’s cold out here; you could die.”

“If I’m lucky, I will,” was her response, reflecting the vast depth of her hopelessness and despair. Since that encounter, the pastor has quietly worked behind the scenes recruiting the community to watch over her, acknowledging her presence in a way that maintains her fragile sense of dignity and respect.

As I saw this woman sitting in her car and heard the pastor share her story, a million questions flooded my mind. Did she have family or friends concerned about her well-being and looking for her? What had happened in her life that had brought her to this place of desperation and loneliness? Would she ever trust someone enough to express her current needs and concerns?

Unfortunately, this young woman is not alone. South Carolina is a state with a history of significant poverty.There are twelve counties that have experienced persistent poverty for years, and there are many other men or women facing the same sense of isolation and hopelessness.

The Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina works to identify ways to document its collaborative efforts to reduce poverty in South Carolina. Often termed as “research,” it also includes listening to those experiencing poverty directly, along with other leaders and stakeholders in their community. It is one way to find answers to some of these questions and seek solutions to better our communities.

In an effort to really listen to those experiencing poverty and hear the voices of those who work daily in service to the poor, the Foundation is conducting several “Listening Sessions” in selected communities across the state this year. The first Listening Session was held in Allendale in March, and the Foundation will travel to Johns Island this month.

According to the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, “Change can only happen when everyone who is affected has a seat at the table and has the opportunity to speak.” The Foundation hopes the listening sessions will allow us to use the gift of listening in order to better understand the potential concerns and solutions that could be utilized to meet unmet needs, and identify ways to facilitate change across the state where persistent poverty and hopelessness can abound.

Stephanie Cooper-Lewter is the senior director of research and special programs for the Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina

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

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