Workplace Experiences & Conditions

In 2025, executive leaders reported much stronger workplace belonging than staff and managers, while respondents of color reported lower belonging overall than White respondents.

The average workplace belonging score was 3.8 out of 5. Executive leaders reported the highest belonging within every racial group, with scores ranging from 3.8 to 4.7. Staff and management scores were lower, generally ranging from 3.0 to 3.7. The pattern was not identical across racial groups: Latine executives reported the highest score at 4.7, while several groups of staff and managers reported scores at or below the overall average.

Racial differences have also persisted over time. White respondents reported higher average belonging than respondents of color in 2019, 2022, and 2025. The gap narrowed in 2022 but widened again in 2025, when the average score was 3.9 among White respondents and 3.5 among respondents of color. Belonging declined for both groups between 2022 and 2025, with a larger decline among respondents of color.

These differences also appear when respondents consider their future workplaces. In 2025, White respondents were more likely than respondents of color to agree that they would be happy working at their organization three years from now. Respondents of color were more likely to disagree, including 15% who strongly disagreed, compared with 8% of White respondents.

The belonging measure includes whether employees have a voice, are consulted about decisions affecting their work, and would be happy remaining at their organization. The lower scores among staff and respondents of color therefore raise important questions about whose perspectives carry influence and who can envision a future within their workplace. Building greater belonging requires more than helping people feel included; it requires expanding employees’ voice in decisions and creating organizational conditions in which people across roles and racial groups can participate, grow, and remain.

In 2025, respondents of color reported lower workplace belonging and higher overall strain than White respondents, with the widest differences appearing in identity-related pressures and attention to staff well-being.

Limited opportunities for advancement and demanding workloads were the two most commonly reported sources of high strain for both racial groups. Approximately 56% of respondents in each group reported limited advancement opportunities. Demanding workload was reported by 60% of White respondents and 55% of respondents of color, showing that not every source of strain was more common among respondents of color.

Demanding workload is the most common source of strain for respondents across racial groups. The largest differences, however, emerge in how work is structured and rewarded. Compared with white respondents, BIPOC respondents are more likely to report inadequate pay, limited opportunities for advancement, increased responsibilities without corresponding title or pay increases, and unequal compensation for comparable work.

The largest racial differences appeared elsewhere. Respondents of color were twice as likely as White respondents to report high stress from being called upon to represent a community—40% compared with 20%. They were also more likely to report inadequate salary (46% versus 38%), too little attention to staff wellness and care (32% versus 21%), and pressure to lead diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts (23% versus 14%). Smaller differences appeared in taking on more responsibility without a corresponding title or pay increase and receiving unequal pay for comparable work.

These findings surface an important equity tension. Heavy workloads and limited advancement affect respondents across racial groups, but respondents of color also report additional identity-related pressures and less organizational care. Reducing workplace strain therefore requires both broad improvements to workload and advancement practices and focused attention to compensation, staff well-being, expectations around DEI work, and the burden of being asked to represent an entire community.

Having access to more workplace benefits does not always mean those benefits meet employees’ needs, and staff of color reported the lowest benefit access and adequacy in 2025.

Staff of color reported access to an average of 5.3 benefits and an average adequacy rating of 3.1 out of 4—the lowest combination among the racial and role-level groups shown. White staff reported access to 5.8 benefits and rated their adequacy at 3.5. By comparison, executive leaders of color and White executive leaders reported access to approximately the same number of benefits, but both groups rated those benefits more highly than staff and managers did. These patterns show that the number of benefits available does not fully capture whether those employees consider them adequate and affordable.

Traditional workplace benefits were widely available in 2025. Approximately 85% of respondents reported access to paid time off, 81% to health insurance, 74% to flexible or remote work arrangements, and 73% to retirement contributions. Other supports were less common: approximately half reported access to employer-sponsored mental health support, and only 10% reported access to child care support such as on-site care or subsidies.
Access also varied considerably by organizational resources. Respondents working in organizations with budgets above $20 million reported access to an average of 7.4 benefits, compared with 6.8 at large organizations, 5.4 at mid-sized organizations, and 3.4 at organizations with budgets of $500,000 or less. These patterns suggest that organizational size – and the resources that often accompany it – plays an important role in shaping employees' access to workplace supports.

Work arrangements also shifted between 2022 and 2025. The share of respondents working primarily remotely declined from 49% to 40%, while hybrid work increased from 18% to 24%. Primarily in-person work increased slightly, from 34% to 36%, reflecting an ongoing shift in how nonprofit organizations structure work after the COVID-19 pandemic.

These findings surface an important equity tension: counting the number of benefits an employer offers does not show whether employees can afford, use, or rely on them. Creating more supportive workplaces requires expanding access—particularly in smaller organizations and among staff—while also examining whether benefits are relevant, affordable, and responsive to employees’ different needs.