See how practices have changed over a decade, and what it means for your institution.
Does incentive compensation belong in your advancement talent strategy, and if so, what makes a program fit your institution’s goals and culture?
Marts&Lundy’s 2026 study explores how higher education institutions approach incentive compensation, from program eligibility and award structures to performance measures and perceived outcomes. A 10-year follow-up to our 2016 research, the report provides benchmarks and practical insight to help advancement leaders make informed decisions within their institution’s unique context.
Download the Full Report:
What You’ll Discover
Drawing on responses from 38 higher education institutions, the study examines current practices and the considerations shaping institutional decisions. Explore how institutions use incentives to support retention, recognize performance, and what leaders can learn from institutions both with and without programs.
Who Should Download This
What’s Inside
Key Insights: What the Data Reveals
1
Adoption Has Held Steady While Interest Remains High
Sixteen percent of participating institutions offer incentive compensation, compared with 18 percent in our 2016 study. Meanwhile, more than 40 percent of those without a program are considering one. Explore the considerations shaping these decisions.
2
Retention is the Leading Goal Programs Share
Every program reporting its goals identified employee retention as an objective. Learn how institutions position incentives within their broader approach to advancement talent.
3
Performance Measures Extend Beyond Dollars Raised
Programs typically combine fundraising results with activity, pipeline, team, or other measures, recognizing both outcomes and the work that supports future success.
4
No Single Program Model Dominates
Current programs are evenly divided between ongoing and campaign-specific structures, and award designs vary. Eligibility is most common among advancement leadership and principal and major giving professionals.
5
Current Adopters Report Encouraging Experiences
Among programs responding to the relevant questions, 80 percent reported increased dollars raised, and 75 percent rated the effect on culture positively or very positively. These findings offer insight into participants’ experiences; they do not establish that incentives caused the reported outcomes.
6
Barriers are Multiple and Reinforcing
Institutions without programs cited an average of three barriers, from philosophy and budget to culture, governance, and collective bargaining. Explore why this decision is as much institutional as financial.
Join the Virtual Briefing
November 17 | 1:00 – 2:00 pm. Eastern (US & Canada)
Hear the findings from our team, discuss what they mean for advancement leaders, and bring your questions about incentive compensation.
About the Study
Marts&Lundy conducted an online survey during summer 2026, inviting participation from institutions with and without advancement incentive compensation programs. The analysis reflects 38 higher education institutions that answered the central question about program adoption.
The research examines prevalence, eligibility, program structure, performance measures, and perceived impact. Selected measures retained from the 2016 study provide a 10-year perspective on practice.
Findings are directional benchmarks from participating institutions, rather than estimates for the sector as a whole. Results concerning active programs reflect a small group of respondents, and response counts vary by question.
Acknowledgements
We thank the following colleagues for their expertise and contributions to this report:
Penelepe Hunt, Senior Consultant & Principal
Dotty Smith, Associate Consultant, Philanthropy Insights & Analytics
Let’s Connect!
Considering how incentive compensation might fit your advancement program? Every institution’s context is different, and so is our approach. Let’s discuss your institution’s goals, talent priorities, and approach to performance. Contact us: info@martsandlundy.com