Kay Sprinkel Grace, author of The Ultimate Board Member's Book, recently spoke with her publisher about nonprofit boards. GuideStar has published an excerpt from the book, and we're pleased to be able to share Ms. Grace's additional thoughts with you.

What's the most common mistake organizations make when recruiting board members?

Not fully describing what's expected in terms of their role and responsibilities. Too often we understate expectations because we want people to serve. That's self-defeating. Full disclosure from the beginning will bring you amazingly dedicated and committed board members. By the same token, understating the requirements ("You only have to come to meetings—the staff does everything else") will backfire and create resentment.

Cite the most important question an organization should ask a candidate before inviting him or her to serve?

Is ours a mission you care about or have passion for? A person can be a Cracker Jack lawyer, accountant, or marketing guru, but if their heart isn't in synch with your mission, you won't find the commitment you need. I've seen boards that have shifted too far toward pragmatism and away from the passion. In my view, the ideal candidate is a "passionate pragmatist."

Give us three adjectives describing the ideal board member.

Curiosity is first, it's something I treasure in board members. I love when they question reports and want to know more. Board members also need the courage to speak up. Far too many boards skim through the budget review, and then, later, are dismayed about allocations or goals that were too ambitious in the first place. Being candid shouldn't be hard, but frequently board members are more conscious of what they think their role is rather than how they feel about an issue or decision.

You say in The Ultimate Board Member's Book that board meetings should always include a "mission moment." What do you mean?

In the middle of the meeting—so as to catch the latecomers and the early leavers—a person (or persons) who have benefited from your services is asked to come and share for 5 to 10 minutes what the organization has meant to them or their family. More often than not, it's a moving experience—sometimes a tear-inducing one. Certainly "mission moments" are motivating.

Say I'm a board member. Sure, I read what's sent to me, I attend meetings, and I ask a question or two. But tell me other things I can do to improve my contribution.

Model leadership at board meetings by being prepared, courageous, candid—and cooperative when decisions are made that aren't your first choice. If you disagree with something, state why; if you're an advocate for the proposed decision, explain why. And take responsibility. For example, if you want to add an event to increase revenues, what will YOU do to support that event and how will YOU engage other board members? Handing it all back to staff is feckless.

In your opinion, the number one way to improve board meetings is ...

Throw a meaty topic on the table and let board members use their brains and experience to make a real contribution. Recently I was at a board meeting where this is done regularly. The climate has gone from tolerable to enjoyable—all because of the way the chair engages the members during the discussions and at the end, when she asks what's their biggest takeaway from the meeting. It's been amazing to watch. Board members now come much more prepared and eager to participate.

For years we've heard about the three Ws—work, wealth, and wisdom—that board members should be recruited on the basis of these. Is this still a good prescription?

I imagine that underneath all the recruitment practices, these criteria still exist. We may not use those words on the recruitment matrix, but we still think of them. My "rule of thirds" is that one-third of your board should have your organization as their top philanthropic priority; one-third should have your organization as one of their top three philanthropic priorities; and one-third will be on your board for other reasons—that is where the wealth over wisdom and work people reside!

You've worked with boards for more than three decades. What dramatic changes have you seen over the years?

It's a major concern of mine that boards aren't keeping up with the changes in our donors and in the marketplace. Too many boards are risk averse, operating from fear rather than dreams. They believe "getting back to zero"—balancing the budget—is cause for champagne at the end of the year. Young people who come on our boards are often disappointed; as are Baby Boomers in their "encore careers" who are looking for solutions to problems they've observed for decades. Our impact will shrink if we persist in a narrow view that's characterized by one-hour board meetings, no action, no dream, no risk taking, and insufficient assessment of the world outside our windows.

Most of us know that boards should evaluate their own performance. But do you find this to be a common practice?

Increasingly it is. I have more requests for sample board self-evaluations than ever. It's all part of the increased focus on performance metrics. Just as donors want to know our programmatic impact, board members are interested in their performance as well. Also, some funders are showing concern for how we assess board performance.

Deadwood—it's not a pretty thing. Has anyone found an easy way to "de-enlist" a board member who just doesn't perform?

I'm bullish on yearly meetings, where the board chair and CEO meet with each board member individually. This allows you to monitor disappointment, non-performance, or frustrations before they get severe. Sometimes, we put up roadblocks to people's engagement (inconvenient meeting times, ill-chosen assignments) and we need to hear about those and make adjustments. Other than that, probably the best way to prevent deadwood is to enforce term limits. If a board member isn't performing after the initial three-year term, ask that person to step down or find another role (committee, advisory board) for him or her.

© 2013, Emerson & Church Publishers.

Kay Sprinkel Grace is also the author of Over Goal! and Fundraising Mistakes That Bedevil All Boards as well as a regular contributor to Contributions Magazine. She is a prolific writer, creative thinker, inspiring speaker, and reflective practitioner. Her passion for philanthropy and its capacity to transform donors, organizations, and communities is well known in the United States and internationally.

Steve Ballmer rocked the tech world earlier this year when he announced his upcoming retirement. Why was that so shocking (other than Microsoft's being the 800-pound gorilla in that industry)? The news instantly generated more questions than answers, mainly because there wasn't a clear successor. People within Microsoft, those who do business with Microsoft, and manufacturers who rely on their Microsoft products were all wondering, "What's next?" That kind of upheaval is tough to overcome, as evidenced by the continuing dialogue in the media around Microsoft's future.

If you've ever been part of a nonprofit that goes through an abrupt leadership change, you've experienced a version of this upheaval. In the nonprofit world success is tied to relationships and trust. Both take a hit when the leader leaves and there's no clear successor or plan for succession. On the other hand, if there's a plan in place and someone is ready to step in, or there's a defined path to finding the next leader, you've answered many of the questions that supporters, partners, board, and even staff may have about the changes.

Before you work out the details of a succession plan for your organization, it's important that you get the board and leadership to agree on the need for the plan. It should be an organizational decision that is presented in writing, approved formally by the board, and reviewed regularly to ensure the plan remains relevant.

For larger organizations, the ideal situation often is to have one or more internal candidates who can be groomed to take on the top job. Just because a plan is in place, however, doesn't mean that the individual(s) receiving additional training and preparation are "automatic" to get a promotion; that point should be made clear to all. This concern should not be an impediment to developing a plan with an internal candidate and then doing everything possible to prepare that person to take on more responsibility.

The situation with most nonprofits, however, is that they don't have enough "bench strength" to have internal candidates. In this situation, it's even more important to have a written succession plan. In fact, the plan should address two distinct possibilities—what would be done if there were an immediate loss of the leader, and what is the long-term plan as a result of an anticipated departure (e.g., retirement). Call the first option the "Lottery Scenario," where the leader leaves the organization abruptly. In this situation, is there someone (a staff member, board member, volunteer) who could take over on an interim basis? If not, there are organizations and individuals that provide interim leader services for a price. In either of these cases, the solution is temporary, but it can ensure that operations are maintained until a longer-term solution can be arranged.

The longer-term solution also addresses the second possibility, a leader's planned departure. In this situation, the succession plan may call for a formal executive search for the next leader. This process will take time (and probably some expense), but it allows the organization time to go through a thoughtful and deliberative process. That is, the organization should step back and evaluate what traits, experience, and skills are needed to move the organization in the direction the board has determined. If done properly, the search also will cast a large enough net to ensure that the candidates identified have the ability to lead the organization for years to come.

A well-done succession plan accomplishes more than one goal. Certainly it lays out a clear path to replacing lost leadership. It also sends a message to constituents—the organization is in it for the long haul—even beyond the tenure of current leadership. The nonprofit has thought through what to do when it's time for leadership to change and wants those associated with the organization to know that they are doing everything in their power to ensure that the valuable services provided continue into the future.

Bill Hoffman, Bill Hoffman and Associates, LLC
© 2013, Bill Hoffman and Associates, LLC

Bill Hoffman has more than 30 years' expertise in various aspects of the nonprofit sector, having worked at all levels of nonprofit organizations, including serving as chief executive of a $6 million education foundation for 9 years. He and his firm have written and presented on topics ranging from board development to community and volunteer engagement, organizational development and performance, and best practices in national, regional, and state publications and symposia.

It's always exciting when a funder or group of funders announces a new initiative. Often these announcements involve millions of dollars being pledged to "help stamp out ________ [fill in the blank]" or generate a whole new way of looking at a particular social issue.

But what I find just as exciting are those moments when I run across a foundation or business program, or even a government program, that is little known and completely catches me by surprise. To see people giving to people and causes, at all levels, and in many different ways, is so very gratifying.

Lately I've been doing a lot of research around philanthropy and national and international associations. I've been taking on this research because I record a podcast each week (about three minutes) that highlights these unique and sometimes difficult to uncover grantmakers. And I have found some real jewels.

For example, the Toy Industry Foundation, which is part of the Toy Industry Manufacturers Association, is the focal point for the philanthropic efforts of toy manufacturers. The foundation collects toys and funds from companies across the toy industry for the benefit of children in need.

The foundation held its most successful one-day toy collection in its 10-year history this past February. They gathered more than 42,000 toys and games worth over $400,000. This big collection of toys was held on the last day of the American International Toy Fair, an annual event.

A number of toy manufacturers participated in this collection, some you may have never heard of such, as Little Tykes, Timeless Toys, and the Tin Box Company,and others that are household names, such as Mattel.

These manufacturers donate everything from bikes and outdoor toys to dollhouses, action figures, puzzles, and books, and a lot of other items as you can imagine. (And some of which you'd have to be a toy manufacturer to imagine!)

These toy industry champions give globally as well as in their own communities to a pre-selected list of about 1,000 carefully vetted charities across the country that support military youth, foster children, impoverished communities, disaster-stricken neighborhoods, children battling illness, and many other populations in need.

Another interesting association is the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry, which offers an unusually diverse set of products that can be useful when offsetting typical budget items for some organizations—things like diapers, medical supplies, electronics, furnishings, a whole array of medical/health care products, even transportation-related products.

The beauty of these types of giving programs is that the association lobbies their members for donations. They ask them to contribute excess inventory and other items, and then the association helps deliver the products to nonprofits in need of these items.

These are just two examples of hundreds of such associations that have giving programs. Start doing a little research, and you'll uncover a small gold mine of potentially new funders for the work you do.

Cynthia M. Adams, GrantStation
© 2013, GrantStation

Cindy Adams is CEO of GrantStation, a premiere online funding resource for organizations seeking grants throughout the world. Providing access to a comprehensive online database of grantmakers, GrantStation helps nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, and government agencies make smarter, better-informed grantseeking decisions. GrantStation is dedicated to creating a civil society by assisting the nonprofit sector in its quest to build healthy and effective communities. GrantStation has a holiday sale going on right now and also offers a weekly podcast, Talk2020, that discusses the U.S. and international grantmakers in its database.

In my decades of running charitable foundations, I read tens of thousands of proposals. Many share the same characteristics I'll touch on below.

Since nearly all foundations are required to disburse some of their funds each year, grants are always made—to someone. Over the years, grantseekers have asked me how they can increase their chances of being among the ones chosen.

Here are answers to the questions I'm most often asked:

1. What are the main characteristics of successful funding proposals?

Let's start with the three Cs: clear, concise, and compelling.

Clear means you eliminate jargon, you write for the actual audience that'll read your proposal, and you leave out all math and formulas, unless you know for certain that recipients of the proposal have technical prowess.

Concise means you don't go one letter over the prescribed limit. You remember that torrents of words degrade their impact. And you know that sharp points get people's attention: use a spear, not a club.

Compelling means you let ideas do the work. You infect the reader with your passion and inspire her with the story of your work. You let the facts do your selling for you.

2. Increasingly I see foundations say they don't accept unsolicited proposals. How am I supposed to get a grant?

Foundations that receive fewer proposals can reduce overhead, freeing up more money for grant making. That's a positive. If you poke around a funder's Web site, you'll usually uncover the letter of inquiry process they prefer (if not require). The LOI is essentially a mini-proposal. It does add a step for you but it's really win-win, since you reduce the labor of finding out if you fit within the priorities and the funder has smaller mounds of paper to paw through.

3. I keep churning out LOIs but still get turned down. What am I doing wrong?

It's entirely understandable that many fundraisers have a standard LOI they send to whatever foundation requires one. This is a mistake. Your funding future with that foundation depends entirely on this crucial step. You can't be too obsessive about customizing your LOI!

Two problems seem to thwart fundraisers when it comes to LOIs: one, they forget the three Cs I cited above and, two, they "bury the lede" as journalists say (you'd think journalists could spell better). In other words, they fail to put the main point of the story first.

LOIs arrive in stacks and are often hurriedly scanned, so they need to tease the reader with a finely crafted sentence that summarizes the project—indicating both subject matter and purpose. This sentence should be the gateway to an excellent, compelling summary paragraph. If you're writing a three-page LOI, you should plan to devote half of your time and creativity to that summary paragraph, because otherwise the excellence of the remaining sections may never be known by that funder.

4. I'm a development person, not an accountant. How can I improve the financial sections of my proposals?

Getting a grant is essentially a financial transaction. You need to meet the funder's general requirements, but you also need to demonstrate that you'll use the dollars provided with care and competence.

Go over your spreadsheet many times to check each number, and have a colleague double check. If the funder asks for a specified span of months or years, provide exactly what is requested, no more and no less. It's a pain to adjust your standard form, but this is what spreadsheet software is for.

In listing sources of support, don't forget non-grant items like material donations and the labor of volunteers. If you're asked to list where you intend to seek support, list where you've applied and where you plan to apply. This is an instance where you can speculate, but avoid the temptation to engage in science fiction—an astute funder will know if you're listing too many funders who are unlikely or impossible.

5. Can I ask why I was turned down?

Sure. That said, many funders aren't exactly forthcoming on this question. To increase your chance of getting a helpful response, do three things. First, use the communication channels that have already been established. If you worked with a program officer, call him, not the executive director or board chair. And if the preferred method of contact is e-mail, don't call!

Second, be precise in how you frame the question. You may want to express gratitude for being considered, along with an interest in knowing how to increase your chance of success in the future.

Third, do not, no matter what, argue or complain, even if it becomes obvious you were misunderstood or that the funder didn't follow their own guidelines. Get the information you need and leave it at that.

6. If I'm turned down, can I try again?

Unless the funder says you can't, by all means. You may have learned about a fixable flaw in your request. You may have been ahead of the funder's learning curve—they could catch up. The funder may need time to get used to your unique strategy or approach. In my career in funding, we supported many organizations that had been turned down at first.

7. Do funder guidelines describe accurately what they fund?

Funder guidelines are a good place to start. But guidelines are sometimes the result of compromises between differing perspectives on the foundation board. Also, guidelines usually stay fixed for years, while the funder's understanding of a given area may evolve with each granting cycle. The one indisputable source of information on what foundations will fund is their grants list. Many foundations list grants on their Web sites. A few will send you a list. For the others, get a copy of their tax return, Form 990-PF.

8. I hate writing grant reports, in part because I doubt that they're read. Honestly, in your years as a funder, did you really look at our reports?

Many funders read reports, at least quickly, and there's no way to know in advance who does and doesn't. If you stiff funders on the report, they may think: "We gave these people $100,000 and they couldn't be bothered to write seven pages? Fat chance we'll give them another penny."

Put antipathy aside and keep your side of the bargain when you signed the grant contract. Individuals who work for nonprofits are often motivated by principles like honesty and trustworthiness. The funders who support your work should see the expression of these sentiments as much as anyone.

Martin Teitel
© 2013, Emerson & Church Publishers.

Martin Teitel is the author of The Ultimate Insider's Guide to Winning Foundation Grants: A Foundation CEO Reveals the Secrets You Need to Know. He has worked in the world of nonprofits for 45 years, 30 of them for grantmaking foundations, including a 12-year stint as CEO of the Cedar Tree Foundation in Boston. Teitel has a PhD in philosophy from the Union Institute, Cincinnati, and a Master's in Social Work from San Diego State University. He is a field education supervisor for the Harvard Divinity School.