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
35
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Compensation Escalation

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2023 47.9% 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 26.2% 36 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 17.7% 45 Fragile Gov Risk
2020 18.6% 45 Fragile Recovery
2019 9.6% 44 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 8.0% 44 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 5.7% 44 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 8.2% 44 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 5.8% 44 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 6.6% 40 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 7.1% 40 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 8.1% 40 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 8.1% 40 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
BRAD ZIMMERMAN Executive Director 46.2% of Rev
DALENE WHITE Treasurer 13.2% of Rev
PERRY DEAN Board President
WILLIAM TURNER Secretary
CAROLYN ROBINSON Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
BRAD ZIMMERMAN Executive Director 29.6% of Rev
PERRY DEAN Board President
WILLIAM TURNER Secretary
DALENE WHITE Treasurer
CAROLYN ROBINSON Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
35 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 59 other orgs in KS with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: governance score sits 8 points below the peer median (42 vs. 50).

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 44 → 35 over 5 years (declining by 9 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Reduce top-officer compensation from 47.9% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~40 points.
  2. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).

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