Compensation Escalation Cycle
Compensation Escalation Cycle
Compensation Escalation Cycle Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint

Compensation Escalation Cycle

What does this mean?

Revenue grows modestly, but top officer compensation grows consistently for 5 years, breaching danger zones. The executive is negotiating aggressive raises against a compliant board.

The Path Forward

The Steward

Re-establishes board supremacy over executive extraction. It freezes compensation and mandates that all future financial rewards be tied strictly to verifiable mission expansion.

The Steward
The Steward
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Compensation Escalation Cycle
Overall
14
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Compensation Escalation

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2022 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2021 24.4% 14 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 24.3% 18 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2019 15.3% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 15.5% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 10.0% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 7.6% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 4.6% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2014 11.6% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 9.2% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2012 12.1% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2011 8.3% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Cynthia Whitaker Executive Director 61.4% of Rev
Mandy Marrs Board Member
Elizabeth Carmody Board Member
Tammy Ewert Board Member
Allison Barrett Board Member
Stephanie Walker Board Member
Mary Ann Elston Board Member
Dondi Fielder Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
0 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
14 / 100
Priority Review

The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →

Peer comparison

Compared to 50 other orgs in LA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 35 points below the peer median (0 vs. 35).

5-year trend: Compensation Escalation Cycle

Revenue grows modestly, but top officer compensation grows consistently for 5 years, breaching danger zones. The executive is negotiating aggressive raises against a compliant board.

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
  2. Build cash reserves to at least 3 months of operating expenses — moves financial resilience score meaningfully (~10 points).

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.