Compensation Escalation Cycle
Compensation Escalation Cycle
Compensation Escalation Cycle Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
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
48
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
75
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Compensation Escalation

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2024 Hidden Hidden 43.8% 48 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2023 Hidden Hidden 55 Fragile Recovery
2022 Hidden Hidden 51 Fragile Recovery
2021 37 Fragile Recovery
2020 27.5% 48 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2019 49 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 57 Fragile Recovery
2017 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 43 Fragile Recovery
2014 35 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2013 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2012 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Oskar Espina Ruiz Board Member 35.0% of Rev
Richard Wenz Board Member 8.8% of Rev
Robert Cantwell Treasurer
Beverley Dean Board President
Scott Armstrong Board Member
Mark Hellmann Board Member
Maria Montanaro Secretary

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Oskar Espina-Ruiz Executive Dir. 14.6% of Rev
Jack Levy Treasurer
Scott Armstrong Board Member
Mark Hellman Board Member
Maria Montanaro Board Member
Beverley Dean Board President
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
75 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
48 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 145 other orgs in NC with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 38 points above the peer median (75 vs. 37).

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. Reduce top-officer compensation from 43.8% 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.