Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What factors influence non-profit CEO compensation packages?
Executive summary
Nonprofit CEO pay is driven primarily by organizational size (budget, staff, programs), geographic market, and sector/mission — with larger budgets and big-city locations consistently linked to higher pay [1] [2] [3]. Boards must follow IRS reasonableness rules and document their process (Form 990) using benchmarking and compensation committees to defend pay decisions [4] [5].
1. Size and financial responsibility: scale buys salary
Research and multiple benchmarking studies show the strongest single factor is organization size — measured by annual budget, program expenses, funds raised, or assets — because more complex, higher‑responsibility roles command higher pay; for example, CEOs at organizations with over $50M average far more than those at $500K–$1M organizations [1] [2] [6].
2. Geography: cost of living and local labor markets matter
Location drives pay variation: metropolitan areas with high living costs and competitive nonprofit/fundraising markets (e.g., New York City, Washington, D.C.) show higher compensation than rural regions, so boards benchmark against peers in similar geographies when setting pay [3] [4] [7].
3. Sector/mission and service type: some fields pay more
The type of nonprofit — hospitals and higher education vs. small grassroots charities or religious groups — affects packages. Health systems and universities often provide executive packages comparable to for‑profit peers and include perks like housing or travel; arts and religious nonprofits often pay less, with arts pay tied more to organization size than mission [8] [9].
4. Market benchmarking and peer comparisons: the board’s evidence
Boards and independent compensation committees are expected to use comparable salary data and surveys to justify pay (not comparing dissimilar organizations like an urban hospital to a rural daycare). Documented benchmarking is central to demonstrating “reasonable” compensation to regulators and stakeholders [4] [6].
5. Performance, incentives, and evolving pay structures
While nonprofits historically eschewed pay‑for‑profit-style incentives because of non‑distribution norms, trends show growing use of bonuses, annual incentives, and deferred compensation (401(k), 457 plans) especially where nonprofits compete with for‑profit employers for talent [1] [3]. However, research cautions that tying pay strictly to financial performance conflicts with nonprofit principles [1].
6. Governance, documentation and legal constraints
The board — often via a compensation committee — holds the duty to hire, evaluate, and approve CEO pay; they must document processes and recuse conflicted members. IRS rules require compensation to be “reasonable,” and Form 990 asks nonprofits to describe how executive pay was set [4] [5] [10].
7. Candidate qualifications and role complexity
A CEO’s experience, unique skills, and the complexity of the role (scope of operations, number of direct reports, fundraising demands) influence offers; smaller nonprofits may need to balance limited budgets against the need to attract qualified leaders, sometimes using non‑salary benefits or perks [9] [11] [7].
8. Competitive pressures and retention considerations
Boards weigh retention risks and competition from private sector recruiters; offering competitive total compensation—including benefits, retirement plans, and non‑cash perks—helps retain leaders, a point emphasized by industry consulting surveys and HR guides [3] [9].
9. Transparency, donor perception, and reputational risk
High executive pay can trigger donor scrutiny and media attention; practitioners advise boards to consider internal equity and public perception when adjusting CEO pay, especially during times of wage compression or economic stress [12] [8].
10. Practical steps boards use to set pay
Common board practices include: forming an independent compensation committee, using nonprofit‑specific compensation surveys and peer benchmarks, documenting deliberations in minutes, and conducting regular reviews — steps recommended by governance authorities to meet both best practice and regulatory expectations [4] [5] [6].
Limitations and disagreements in coverage
Available sources agree on the major drivers (size, location, sector, governance) and document a growing use of incentive and deferred pay [1] [3]. Available sources do not mention precise national median figures for 2025 beyond specific studies; sources vary in framing how strongly performance metrics should be weighted — academic work flags principled limits on pay‑for‑performance [1], while surveys document increasing use of bonuses in practice [3].
If you want, I can draft a short checklist the board can use when reviewing or proposing a nonprofit CEO compensation package, with language suitable for Form 990 disclosures.