Leadership, Trust, and the Price of Perception: The CEO Compensation Debate and Nonprofit Accountability
Kris Kewitsch | Executive Director, Charities Review Council | April 2025
Several months have passed since Allison O’Toole, the former CEO of Second Harvest Heartland, stepped down from her role. Her departure made headlines not only for her legacy of leadership, but also for the public scrutiny over her compensation, which reached $528,000 in 2022.
While the controversy may have faded from the news cycle, the need for board accountability and transparent executive compensation remains urgent.
During O’Toole’s tenure, Second Harvest Heartland grew into one of the largest hunger relief organizations in the country, with revenues exceeding $250 million in 2022. Her leadership guided the organization through the pandemic and into a period of expanded service.
Yet as the story unfolded, attention quickly turned to executive compensation. In a sector where trust is everything, and where services are funded largely through donations and public grants, questions about leadership compensation can quickly erode credibility, even if the decisions are justifiable.
Governance Matters, Especially When No One’s Watching
The Charities Review Council’s Accountability Standards® make it clear: nonprofit boards must proactively manage and document executive compensation and performance. The Chief Executive Assessment & Compensation standard outlines a thoughtful process to guide decision-making:
“Annual goal setting and year-end assessments against the goals establishes trust and understanding… Likewise, it builds public trust to assure that compensation decisions are carefully considered, and that pay is reasonable.”
Boards that follow this guidance will:
- Set annual performance goals with the CEO
- Conduct formal, documented evaluations
- Benchmark compensation using credible market data
- Ensure conflict-free decision-making
- Keep clear records of all decisions in board or committee minutes
One of the biggest risks nonprofits face isn’t the decisions they make, it’s how (or whether) they explain them. In the case of Second Harvest Heartland, the public may never know what internal processes were used to determine compensation. Without proactive communication, even well-informed decisions can appear questionable.
At the end of the day, leadership transitions and salary disclosures will always attract attention in the nonprofit world. Now that the headlines have faded, boards have a window of opportunity to strengthen their internal governance out of abundant commitment to transparency, equity, and the communities they serve.
