How often should we benchmark?

Full benchmarking every two to three years, with annual reference checks against published sector data. More frequently risks chasing the market; less frequently risks drifting out of line without realising.

Which data sources are most useful for UK charities?

Croner Charity Reward Survey, NCVO UK Civil Society Almanac, ACEVO Pay Survey for senior roles, sector-specific surveys (CFG for finance roles), and structured peer-charity exchanges where governance allows. Generic salary sites are usually not a fit.

Should trustees set chief executive pay differently?

Yes. Chief executive pay sits with a remuneration committee or the trustees themselves, benchmarked against a defined comparator set, with the decision documented in line with Charity Commission expectations on public scrutiny.

Salary Benchmarking for Charity Teams in 2026 Made Defensible

Charity pay decisions are still too often made on instinct, last year plus a number, or what the last hire negotiated. The methods that produce defensible benchmarks, the data sources that apply to UK charities, and the oversight that keeps it fair.

Salary decisions in UK charities are still too often improvised. Last year's number plus a small percentage. Whatever the new hire negotiated. A peer-charity figure remembered from a conference. The result, repeated over a few years, is internal pay relativities that nobody can explain and that periodically surface as a fairness issue or a tribunal claim.

Defensible salary benchmarking is not difficult. It does require choosing the right data sources, applying them with discipline, and giving trustees the oversight to make the framework genuinely fair. The article below sets out the working method I use with charity teams, and the data sources that hold up under scrutiny in 2026.

What defensible benchmarking looks like

A defined comparator set

Before looking at any data, agree the comparator set. Typical inclusion criteria: charities of similar income band (within plus or minus 50%), similar sector or activity profile, similar workforce mix (staff and volunteers), similar geographic profile. A comparator set of 20 to 40 organisations gives statistically meaningful comparisons.

Multiple data sources

Triangulation matters. A single source is vulnerable to sample bias and outliers. Three sources, each treated as a perspective rather than the answer, produce a defensible range.

Role-based, not person-based

Benchmark roles, not people. The role profile defines the comparison; the post-holder's experience and performance influence where in the range they sit, not whether they are in the range.

Documented rationale

Every benchmarking decision documented: comparator set, data sources, ranges, rationale for the chosen position in range. The documentation is what makes the decision defensible six months later when the question is asked.

Data sources that actually apply to UK charities

Croner Charity Reward Survey

The largest charity-sector pay dataset in the UK. Granular by role family, income band and region. Subscription required but accessible to most small to mid-sized charities. The default starting point for most benchmarking exercises.

ACEVO Pay and Equalities Survey

Strongest dataset for senior leadership roles, particularly chief executive and director-level. Annual publication. Useful for remuneration committee decisions and trustee-level scrutiny.

Sector-specific surveys

CFG for finance roles. CIOF for fundraising. CIPD for HR roles. Each provides depth in its discipline that broader surveys cannot match. Often free to members.

Peer charity exchange

Structured exchanges between charities, often through a sector network or membership body. Particularly useful for roles where published data is thin. Must follow competition law guidance; safer to share through a third party or via a structured anonymised method.

Useful for sense-checking, not for primary benchmarking. Adverts often list ranges; actual hire salaries vary. Best used to validate a range derived from survey data.

Sources that are usually not a fit

Generic salary sites (Glassdoor, Indeed) usually skew toward private sector and lack charity-specific context. Useful for very general orientation; rarely useful for defensible decisions.

The benchmarking method in practice

Define the comparator set in writing, approved by the chief executive (and trustees for senior roles).
Gather data from at least three sources per role family.
Derive a range for each role: lower quartile, median, upper quartile.
Map current post-holders onto the range, with rationale (experience, performance, time in role, market scarcity).
Identify outliers in either direction. Plan adjustments over a defined period rather than in a single uplift.
Document the exercise, present to remuneration committee or trustees, and publish the policy framework internally.

Trustee oversight that keeps it fair

Remuneration committee or equivalent

For charities of any meaningful size, a remuneration committee with two or three trustees, the chair of trustees and (usually) the treasurer. Annual cycle reviewing senior pay; full benchmarking cycle every two to three years.

Chief executive pay

Set by the remuneration committee or full board, with explicit reference to a comparator set and documented rationale. Publication in the trustees' annual report consistent with sector norms and public expectations.

Pay equity reporting

Annual pay equity review (by gender, ethnicity where data permits, full-time vs part-time, hybrid vs on-site). Reported to trustees. Specific actions where the data shows unjustified gaps.

Common benchmarking mistakes

Using a single source and treating it as the answer.
Comparing to private-sector benchmarks for senior charity roles, which are not directly comparable.
Allowing post-holder negotiation to drive the salary rather than the role profile.
Failing to update the comparator set as the charity grows or changes activity profile.
Conflating cost-of-living adjustments with benchmarking, which are different exercises and should remain separate.
Omitting trustee documentation, leaving the framework vulnerable to challenge.

A defensible salary framework is the cheapest way to reduce charity-sector legal and reputational risk on pay. The trustees who invest in the exercise rarely have to explain a decision after the fact.

What the 2026 sector data suggests

Senior leadership pay continues to compress

Median chief executive pay in small to mid-sized UK charities has grown roughly with inflation over the past five years, while the cost of recruiting senior talent has risen faster. Boards increasingly use non-salary mechanisms (flexibility, sabbatical, formal development) to bridge the gap.

Fundraising and digital roles continue to attract market premia

Major gifts fundraising, digital product and data roles command consistent premia in the charity sector. The benchmarking framework should reflect the market rather than assume the role family is interchangeable.

Hybrid working has become a meaningful component of total reward

Charities offering genuine hybrid arrangements report being more competitive at recruitment than the headline salary alone would suggest. Worth capturing in the framework explicitly.

The 90-day benchmarking exercise

Days 1 to 15: Define comparator set, identify data sources, assemble the exercise team.
Days 16 to 45: Gather and analyse data, derive ranges.
Days 46 to 60: Map post-holders, identify outliers, draft framework.
Days 61 to 75: Review with remuneration committee, refine.
Days 76 to 90: Trustee approval, internal communication, planned implementation of adjustments.

Ninety days, repeated every two or three years. A framework that holds up to scrutiny, that explains itself, and that protects the charity from the pay decisions that quietly erode trust when they go unexplained.

Salary Benchmarking for Charity Teams in 2026