Compensation & Economic Inequality

Six-figure salaries have become far more common, but access remains uneven across demographic groups and roles.

The share of respondents earning $100,000 or more nearly tripled—from 14.4% in 2016 to 40.7% in 2025—as the overall salary distribution shifted toward higher pay ranges. Access to six-figure salaries remained uneven, however. In 2025, the share was higher among Black and Asian respondents than among White, Latine, and multiracial respondents, and higher among cisgender men than among cisgender women and trans and gender-expansive respondents.

Role level accounts for some of the largest differences, but the race-by-role comparison shows variation even among respondents at the same organizational level. Within executive leadership and management, Asian and Black respondents reported the highest six-figure salary shares, while White respondents reported the lowest share in each role category shown. These descriptive findings do not establish pay equity among people performing equivalent work: organization size, geography, years of experience, job responsibilities, and other factors may also shape salary differences.

Income from other household members remains the most common resource beyond respondents’ nonprofit jobs, while access to higher household incomes varies across racial groups.

Among respondents reporting other income or wealth in 2025, 67.5% received income contributed by another household member. Income from another job was the next most common source, reported by 33.9%, followed by investments or capital gains at 22.3%. Each was somewhat more common than in 2022. Family-funded education also increased from 10.7% to 14.1%, while the prevalence of other reported resources changed more modestly.

In 2025, about half of Asian respondents (49.6%) and Latine respondents (48.3%) reported total annual household incomes of $150,000 or more. The corresponding shares were 46.2% among other BIPOC respondents, 46.0% among White respondents, and 39.0% among Black respondents. These shares were lower than in 2022 for every racial group shown, although the size of the difference varied by group.

These findings describe resources among survey respondents, not changes experienced by the same individuals over time. Total household income also does not measure individual earnings, wealth, or disposable income. Household size, number of earners, geography, debt, caregiving responsibilities, and other financial obligations may affect what the same household-income level means for respondents’ economic security.

Upward class mobility is more common among nonprofit leaders than staff—and, within every role level shown, among BIPOC respondents compared with White respondents.

In 2025, 51.1% of BIPOC executive leaders and 45.9% of White executive leaders described themselves as upwardly mobile. Among managers, the corresponding shares were 48.9% and 35.8%; among staff, they were 45.8% and 33.1%. Downward mobility was generally less common among leaders than staff, although BIPOC and White staff reported the same downward-mobility share in 2025, at 10.2%.

The childhood-to-current-class transitions help show what those mobility categories represent. Among respondents who described their childhood class as lower class, 51.4% identified as middle class in 2025 and 39.8% identified as working class, while 8.3% continued to identify as lower class. Among those from working-class backgrounds, 61.9% identified as middle class and 1.3% as upper class, while 34.4% continued to identify as working class. Respondents from middle-class backgrounds were the most likely to remain in the same class category, at 80.9%.

These findings reflect respondents’ self-described class positions rather than an objective measure of income or wealth. They also show associations, not causes: current role, age, years in the workforce, education, household resources, and other factors may all relate to reported mobility. Because each survey wave includes a different group of respondents, differences across years should not be interpreted as changes experienced by the same individuals.

Compensation increases and uncompensated workload often coexist: in 2025, nearly half of respondents received a cost-of-living raise, while 39% were asked to take on new projects without a pay increase.

Raises resulting from a pay-equity review or audit were less common, reported by 21% of respondents. One in ten respondents reported experiencing none of the listed compensation, promotion, or workload changes.

Experiences with uncompensated project work also differed across race and role. Executive leaders had the lowest reported share within every racial group shown, although the size of the role difference varied. Among Asian respondents, for example, the share ranged from 25.8% of executive leaders to 51.5% of staff. Among White respondents, it ranged from 39.4% of executive leaders to 48.7% of managers. Management had the highest reported share among Black, other BIPOC, and White respondents, while staff had the highest share among Asian, Latine, and multiracial respondents.

These findings show that receiving a raise does not necessarily mean workers were compensated for additional projects or responsibilities; respondents could report more than one experience. The subgroup results are descriptive and may also reflect differences in job responsibilities, organization size, years of experience, and other factors not shown in the dashboard.

Salary strain is widespread and intersects with financial and caregiving responsibilities beyond the workplace.

In 2025, roughly two in five respondents said it was mostly or very true that their salary was inadequate, while approximately one in four said they were paid less than colleagues doing the same work. These measures capture respondents’ perceptions of their current jobs; they do not independently establish whether people performing comparable work received unequal pay.

Regular financial support for family outside the household was especially common among Black respondents (42.3%), other BIPOC respondents (40.7%), and Latine respondents (38.2%). The corresponding shares were 30.9% among Asian respondents, 24.5% among White respondents, and 19.1% among multiracial respondents. Past support was also common among Black respondents, 23.7% of whom reported previously providing regular financial support.

Reported salary inadequacy also differed by caregiving status. It was most common among respondents caring for non-dependents (44.5%) or adults (42.9%), compared with 36.1% of respondents reporting no caregiving responsibilities and 33.3% of those caring for children. Because caregiving categories are recorded through separate indicators, respondents may appear in more than one caregiving group.

These patterns are descriptive and do not establish that financial support or caregiving responsibilities cause salary strain. Household resources, number of earners, role level, organization size, geography, and other factors may also shape workers’ financial experiences.