Member Interview: Sandra Mikush
Assistant Director, Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation

Interview By Pat Taylor

Sandra Mikush is the assistant director of the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where she has worked for the last seven years. This job is her first as a grantmaker, having been recruited based on her previous work as a university fundraiser and a board member of community-based organizations in her hometown of Durham. Sandra is completing her fourth year on the NFG board of directors and currently serves as NFG's co-chair.

This interview took place on February 10, 1999.

Pat Taylor: You emphasize what you call values-driven grantmaking at the Babcock Foundation. Tell us what you mean by that.

Sandra Mikush: We've tried to articulate our purpose and values as clearly as possible. They become the touchstone for everything we do. We value the community as the locus for change, people and organizations in that community as the vehicle for change, and a respect for the power of people to have the right answers and assets that they contribute to the community. We've named our program Building Just and Caring Communities. I think that captures the kind of communities we want to work for.

The purpose and values describe the kind of community we're working for and the way we'll make investments there. Our grantmaking strategies focus on building the capacity of grassroots leaders, community-based organizations, and relationships across race and class lines in communities. We have a strong focus on bridging race and class lines and on addressing racism and poverty directly. We've heard loud and clear that it's unusual and important for us to say out loud that we address racism. A lot of funders care about that, but I don't think many have said it quite that way - at least not in the South.

Until 1994, we had worked like many other foundations. We divided our programs by issue areas and did funding in children, families, the environment, community economic development - that kind of thing. In our review of our work in 1994, we found that as funders we can cause problems and miss opportunities by funding categorically. By articulating our purpose and values and being clear about what we want the outcome of our funding to be in each program, we're open to a lot of different strategies and approaches that organizations and communities may take.

PT: Usually we hear about evaluation from the perspective of grantee evaluation by funders. Can you tell us what your thinking is about evaluation?

SM: In 1995 we decided to do evaluations for our own learning and build that into everything we do. We wanted to find out if the specific strategies we had chosen were successful in meeting our outcomes, if they were helping us reach our ultimate vision of just and caring communities. So, for every grantmaking program we do, we build in some way to evaluate the overall program, beyond monitoring individual grantees. Our organizational development program is the first that's completed a formal evaluation. We used a university-based team of folks who are very experienced in participatory evaluation. We wanted to do the strategic evaluation of our program in a way that would help build the capacity of our grantees. So the evaluation included some technical assistance to our grantees on how to do their own evaluations, which fit in beautifully with the goals of the organizational development program.

We also wanted to know if we needed to make mid-course changes in the program based on what was working and what wasn't. And we wanted to share what we'd learned with other foundations and other community organizations. We're just beginning to do that - in fact, it will be the focus of our annual report this year.

I think funders are good at building in evaluation, but it's usually evaluating others on our terms. Are we as open to evaluating our own effectiveness? And are we open to paying for evaluations that are designed and owned by our grantees?

PT: You emphasize encouraging groups to collaborate - in learning networks, mutual technical assistance, and working in regional and statewide collaboration. What are you trying to achieve with this strategy?

SM: In our 1994 planning process, we kept hearing that we really ought to use our own financial resources and our bird's eye view of the South to convene folks, put them in contact with each other. We've taken that seriously; tentatively at first, but with a lot more confidence lately, building convening into all of the grantmaking we do. It's probably as effective as all of the strategies we do, including giving money.

When we started, we kind of stepped out on faith that we really did have something to offer in terms of bringing people together to let them learn from each other. At the first organizational development gathering, we even asked people to wear little sandwich boards that said here's what I can offer and here's what I want to learn. Four years later, the gathering was almost entirely peer led and almost all of the skill workshops were led by peer trainers. We really believe that peers are the best teachers - we put them in touch with excellent, professional trainers, but always folks who are skilled at pulling the knowledge and expertise out of the people doing the work. It's amazing to see the cross-fertilization at a gathering of Babcock grantees. You have folks doing state policy advocacy, direct services in local communities, leadership development, community organizing, and all sorts of different approaches. We see a lot of common cause there that often goes unnoticed by people doing work single mindedly in their communities. When they get together, they see and learn new approaches to their work and see promise for collaborating across organizational lines that they may not have considered before.

PT: What is a gathering?

SM: It's a two and a half day annual meeting of Babcock grantees, including board and staff members. In the organizational development program, we combine skill building, networking, and digging into understanding core concepts of organizational development. One thing we found in the midcourse review was that folks that were finishing their three years of funding and getting ready to exit the program were asking us if they could stay involved in the network. We have a steady state of about 60 organizations actively funded in a given year, but we may have another 20 organizations represented in the network.

PT: How can foundations assess the amount of time community groups need to build their capacity to make changes that involve residents in a meaningful way?

SM: Assume it's longer than you think! We're really open to renegotiating budgets and workplans along the way, and found that's absolutely