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
39
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
60
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2018 26.4% 39 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2017 39.2% 39 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2016 21.5% 40 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2015 30.9% 35 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2014 17.3% 42 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2013 6.8% 58 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 7.2% 58 Fragile Recovery
2011 10.7% 53 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

No IRS 990 Part VII compensation data available for this organization.

Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
60 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
39 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 296 other orgs in PA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 22 points above the peer median (60 vs. 38).

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.

Overall score has gone from 42 → 39 over 5 years (declining by 3 points).

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. Reduce top-officer compensation from 26.4% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~9 points.

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