When we were creating our five core Principles for Peak Grantmaking, the working group landed on Steward Responsively as our fourth. What? Don’t we mean responsibly? No. Responsible means being morally accountable for one’s action, while being responsive implies the ability to react quickly with positive outcomes for all. Who can’t get behind that notion (even if we have to write a ton of blogs to explain the difference)?

Consider risk from a nonprofit perspective: Whether perceived or real, a funder’s perception of risk impacts how they raise money, which, in turn, impacts everything. So, using seemingly innocuous adjectives like “new” and “small” can trigger the most defensive of postures.

In a recent discussion that included Adriana Jiménez, PEAK’s former board co-chair, she spoke about how some nonprofits have chosen to be small or nontraditional because it’s the best model for them to advance their mission. But for funders that begin their quest worried about whether the size of staff or organization of a potential grantee implies an inability to execute, the funder might instead pass the organization by and miss an amazing partnership opportunity.

If “small” and “new” are triggering to some, consider what “grassroots,” “Black-led,” and “queer activist” descriptors conjure for those foundations whose grantmaking practices and dollars have primarily backed white cisgender-led 501(c)3 nonprofits.

I continue to work in this sector because I believe in it. There is no monolith of funders or social-sector organizations. I am heartened that the sector seems to have learned from the trials and tests of the past few years, and I see refreshing changes in attitudes and funding practices. But the myth of risk stubbornly persists.

Risk models were not designed for our sector. The businesses that require those models do so to gain an advantage over their competitors, generally for the purpose of profitability. I’m going to echo what Brené Brown does when she narrates her audiobooks. Repeat myself so it sinks in: Risk models were not designed for our sector and those businesses that require their use do so to gain an advantage over their competitors, generally for the purpose of profitability. As someone who sat on the side of the funder angels for many years, the lack of spirit in that purpose completely misses the mark for those of us with the heart and soul for this work.

If your foundation has established risk assessments and begins funding discussions with a “low-risk” tolerance, is that about you or the nonprofits? Is it because your organization has made a series of investments to failing nonprofits, or ones whose results repeatedly fell short of expectations? The funders I know have few of those tales. So, why not let down the guard and dispense with the notion that the right role is to control access to the treasure and protect against all perceived perils. Instead, with each grant decision, might you welcome the opportunity to take a fresh look and lend a fair chance to a new potential partner in the work? And while we’re at it, how about we just retire the term “risk assessment”?

Read the full article about myths about funders by Satonya Fair at PEAK Grantmaking.