As with all our work, we iteratively rely on three circles of evidence — academic research, informed opinion, and field knowledge — to understand philanthropic opportunities that are both evidence-based and actionable. For this guidance, our research began with a review of 71 academic articles on talent and staffing models in philanthropy and adjacent sectors, such as health care and the military, where work involved a mission or nonprofit goal. We also reviewed 145 other sources that included non-academic articles, video interviews of high net worth donors, webinars by philanthropic support organizations, conference participation and proceedings, and materials prepared by consultants and philanthropic advisors.

In addition, we interviewed 32 key individuals, including representatives from academia, philanthropic intermediary organizations, and grant-making philanthropic organizations. Findings from these interviews helped us identify factors that practitioners currently consider when making philanthropic talent decisions.

Four key existing frameworks were identified through the literature review and consistently referenced during exploratory interviews as the current knowledge base for donors on this topic. For a list of these and other key philanthropic strategy resources, please see the Talent for Giving microsite at www.impact.upenn.edu/toolkits/talent-for-giving.

Early versions of our guidance built on this and considered two additional aspects of talent not addressed in the existing frameworks we reviewed. The first is a broader definition of talent beyond hired staff to include contracted talent (e.g., consultants and advisors), peer mentors, co-funders, and the talent that reside in the organizations receiving funding. The second is an explicit discussion of the functions that talent will perform. It is hard to know what talent you need until you know what functions or jobs they will perform.

We tested early versions of our guidance in two separate two-hour focus groups and an in-person convening of 25 participants. In the first setting, academics, principals, foundation staff, and philanthropic intermediaries and consultants provided feedback. In the latter setting, we also gained the perspectives of family foundation heads and principals themselves.