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
45
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
45
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 Hidden Hidden 19.1% 35 Fragile Gov Risk
2022 — — 17.8% 37 Fragile Gov Risk
2021 — — 19.7% 37 Fragile Gov Risk
2020 — — 20.8% 40 Fragile Gov Risk
2019 — — 10.4% 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 — — — 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 — — 0.3% 38 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2016 — — — 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 — — — 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 — — — 41 Fragile Recovery
2013 — — — 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 — — 14.3% 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2011 — — 11.6% 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
STEPHEN MACIASZ Board President —
LORETTA ROBILLARD Treasurer —
EDDIE GUERRA Board Member —
AMY NECK Board Member —
BETTY FONTAINE Board Member —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
STEPHEN MACIASZ Board President —
LORETTA ROBILLARD Treasurer —
EDDIE GUERRA Board Member —
AMY NECK Board Member —
BETTY FONTAINE Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
25 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 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 98 other orgs in LA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 33 points below the peer median (25 vs. 58).

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 41 → 35 over 5 years (declining by 6 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. 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.