Nonprofit Succession Planning
Succession planning is two documents, not one. An emergency plan covering an unplanned absence can be written in an afternoon and is the one most organizations are missing. The departure plan is the slower piece.
Succession planning has a reputation as a large governance project, which is most of the reason it does not get done. The reputation is only half earned. It is two separate documents with different costs, and the cheap one is the one that matters most.
| Emergency succession plan | Planned departure plan | |
|---|---|---|
| Covers | Sudden absence: illness, accident, resignation without notice | Known departure: retirement, a move, an agreed exit |
| Time to write | An afternoon | Weeks, spread over a board cycle |
| Board action | Adopt by resolution | Committee, timeline, often a search firm |
| Review | Annually, and whenever the named people change | When a departure becomes foreseeable |
| Most common failure | Never written | Started too late |
Organizations that put off succession planning are usually thinking of the second column. The first column is a short document naming who holds authority tomorrow morning if the executive director is unreachable, and there is no good reason for any organization not to have one.
On the statistic everyone quotes
Every article on this subject opens with a share of nonprofits that have a written succession plan. We went looking for the source, because the number moves depending on who is citing it.
| Figure in circulation | Attributed to |
|---|---|
| 27% | Leading with Intent 2017, cited on BoardSource’s own current page |
| 29% | A 2021 wave |
| 33% | Quoted without an edition |
| 34% | A 2024 wave |
These are not four findings. They are different editions of one survey, quoted as though they were interchangeable, and often with the year dropped. The most striking part is that BoardSource’s own live guidance page on executive transition still cites the 2017 figure of 27 percent.
The honest summary is that somewhere between a quarter and a third of nonprofits report having a written succession plan, that the measure has moved slowly, and that anyone quoting a precise figure without an edition year is repeating a number rather than reporting one. The direction is what matters for your board conversation, and the direction is that most organizations do not have this.
The emergency plan, in full
This is the whole document. It is short on purpose, because a plan nobody can find or read at short notice is not a plan.
Who acts. Name a first and second successor by role and by name. The most common mistake is naming only a role that is itself vacant half the time, or naming one person who may be on the same aeroplane.
What they can decide. Spending authority up to a stated limit, signing authority, and what requires the board chair instead. Be specific with numbers. An interim leader who does not know whether they can authorise a $9,000 repair will not authorise it.
Who is told, and in what order. Board chair, then staff, then major funders and partners. Include a holding statement so nobody drafts one under pressure.
Where the keys are. Bank access, payroll, insurance, the donor database, the website, the registrar. This is the section that fails most often, because access sits in one person’s password manager and the plan does not say whose.
When it ends. A date or a trigger at which the board reviews, so an interim arrangement does not quietly become permanent without a decision.
The departure plan
The longer piece is mostly a board exercise and it is worth separating from the leaver. A plan built around keeping one specific person’s approach is not a succession plan, it is a memorial.
Start from the role rather than the person. What does the organization need from this job in the next three years, which is rarely identical to what it needed from the last hire. Then decide the interim arrangement, the search timeline, and who holds relationships in the meantime.
Donor relationships are the part boards consistently underestimate. If major gift relationships live with a departing executive and nowhere else, the plan needs a named handover for each one, started well before the departure and not on the last week.
The internal successor question
Boards often assume a deputy is the plan. Two things make that fragile. The deputy may not want the job, and nobody has asked. And an internal candidate who assumes they will be appointed, then is not, usually leaves, so the organization loses two people instead of one.
Both are fixed by saying out loud what the process will be. Whether there will be an open search, whether internal candidates are encouraged to apply, and that applying is not a promise. That conversation is uncomfortable once and prevents a much worse one later.
The board’s first thirty days
Most emergency plans stop at naming an interim leader, which leaves the board improvising the part that actually determines how the transition goes.
In the first week the board chair should meet the interim leader and agree what decisions are theirs, what comes to the chair, and how often they will speak. Weekly is usually right at the start. Staff should hear the arrangement from the board rather than through rumour, and they should be told when they will next hear something, even if the answer is that nothing has been decided.
In the first month the board needs to decide two separate questions and resist merging them. Whether the interim arrangement is stable enough to hold while a proper search runs, and whether the interim leader is a candidate for the permanent role. Answering the second one early, informally, in a corridor, is how boards end up with a search that everybody knows is decorative.
Funders should hear from the board chair directly rather than reading about a change elsewhere. A short factual note that names the interim leader and says the board is managing the transition prevents the far harder conversation that follows silence.
Getting it adopted
Put the emergency plan on the next board agenda as a single item with a draft already written. Succession planning fails as an agenda item when it is proposed as a project to be scoped, because it goes to a committee and the committee has other work.
Adopt it by resolution, record it in the minutes, and store it where the board chair can reach it without the executive director. Then review it once a year with the audit or the insurance renewal, and rewrite it whenever a named person leaves. A plan naming someone who left two years ago is worse than no plan, because it will be followed.
One test tells you whether what you have is real. Ask your board chair to produce the emergency succession plan, from memory of where it is, without contacting the executive director. If that takes more than a few minutes, the document exists but the plan does not, and the fix is filing rather than drafting.
The same test applied to the keys section is the one that most often fails. Have someone other than the executive director confirm they can actually reach the bank portal and the payroll system today, rather than confirming that the plan says they can.
Questions people ask
What is nonprofit succession planning?
The process of deciding in advance who holds authority, and how a transition runs, when a key leader leaves.
It is best understood as two documents. An emergency succession plan covers a sudden unplanned absence and can be written in an afternoon. A planned departure plan covers a known exit such as a retirement and is a board project taking weeks.
Most organizations that describe themselves as having no succession plan are thinking about the second one. The first is short, cheap, and the one there is no defensible reason to be without.
What percentage of nonprofits have a succession plan?
Roughly a quarter to a third, and the precise figure quoted depends on which edition of one survey the writer read.
BoardSource's Leading with Intent series is the source behind almost every number in circulation. The figures being quoted include 27 percent from the 2017 edition, 29 percent from a 2021 wave, and 34 percent from a 2024 wave, along with a 33 percent that usually appears with no edition attached.
BoardSource's own current guidance page on executive transition still cites the 2017 figure.
Treat any precise percentage quoted without an edition year as a repeated number rather than a reported one. The useful point is directional: most nonprofits do not have this.
What goes in an emergency succession plan?
Five things, and it should stay short enough to read under pressure.
Who acts, naming a first and second successor by role and by name. What they can decide, with specific spending and signing limits. Who is told and in what order, with a holding statement already drafted.
Where the keys are: bank access, payroll, insurance, the donor database, the website and the domain registrar. This section fails most often, because access sits in one person's password manager and the plan does not say whose.
And when it ends, meaning the date or trigger at which the board reviews, so an interim arrangement does not become permanent by default.
Whose job is succession planning, the board or the executive director?
The board owns it, because the board hires and holds the chief executive.
In practice the executive director usually drafts the emergency plan, since they know where the keys are and what the role does day to day. The board reviews it, adopts it by resolution, and holds a copy the executive director does not control.
That last point matters. A succession plan stored only on the executive director's laptop is unavailable in exactly the situation it exists for.
How often should a succession plan be reviewed?
Once a year, and immediately whenever a named person changes.
Attach the annual review to something that already happens on a fixed schedule, such as the audit or the insurance renewal, so it does not depend on somebody remembering.
The out of date failure is worse than the missing one. A plan naming a deputy who left two years ago will be followed in a crisis, by people acting quickly on the document in front of them.
Should we name an internal successor in advance?
Name someone to hold authority in an emergency, yes. Promise the permanent job to someone in advance, usually no.
Two problems come up. The deputy may not want the job and nobody has asked them. And an internal candidate who believes they will be appointed, and then is not, generally leaves, so the organization loses two people rather than one.
Both are prevented by stating the process out loud: whether there will be an open search, whether internal candidates are encouraged to apply, and that applying is not a promise. That is one uncomfortable conversation instead of a much worse one later.
What happens to donor relationships when a leader leaves?
They are at risk, and boards consistently underestimate this.
If major gift relationships live with the departing executive and nowhere else, they leave with them. The fix is a named handover for each significant relationship, started well before the departure rather than in the final week.
Structurally, the deeper fix is that relationship history belongs in your database rather than in one person's memory and inbox. Contact records, giving history, notes on what each donor cares about and who else in the organization knows them.
A transition is the moment that discipline pays for itself, and the moment its absence shows.
Tell the donors yourself rather than letting them hear it elsewhere. A short note from the board chair naming who will be in touch next protects the relationship considerably better than silence does.
How do we get the board to actually adopt a plan?
Bring a finished draft to the next meeting as a single agenda item, rather than proposing succession planning as a project.
Proposed as a project it goes to a committee, and the committee has other work. Presented as a two page emergency plan ready to adopt, it takes one discussion.
Adopt it by resolution so it appears in the minutes, and store a copy the board chair can reach without going through the executive director.
Then do the longer departure planning separately, on its own timeline, once the short document is in place.
This is reference information, not legal or tax advice. Rules vary by state and change over time. For a decision that carries real consequences, check the current text at irs.gov or your state registry, and talk to a nonprofit attorney or CPA.