This article is written by someone with lived experience in Colorado’s reentry system—not always a positive one. It seeks to shed light on pressing issues within mental health services, reentry programs, and the broader non-profit sector in Colorado, which have reached what some describe as a pandemic of systemic dysfunction.
The Facebook prompt “What’s on your mind?” sparked reflection on a recent CPR News report about Caring for Denver, a taxpayer-funded non-profit organization that allocates grants to organizations addressing mental and behavioral health challenges. While Caring for Denver’s mission is admirable, its financial structure — particularly executive salaries — invites comparison to other non-profits like Second Chance Center (SCC), which focuses on reentry services for formerly incarcerated individuals.
Executive Compensation: Caring for Denver vs. Second Chance Center
Caring for Denver employs 13 people, with its Executive Director earning $221,783 annually, a sharp increase from $181,423 in 2020. In contrast, SCC, based in Aurora, Colorado, has a more grassroots structure. While exact salary figures for SCC’s leadership are not widely publicized, it is known that the center grew through collaborative efforts, with staff and clients physically contributing to its development. SCC relies on initiatives like Colorado’s Work and Gain Education and Employment Skills (WAGEES) program for funding, which supports reentry programs for justice-involved individuals.
The disparity in executive pay highlights a broader issue in the nonprofit sector: balancing competitive compensation for leaders with the need to equitably distribute funds to support frontline workers. At Caring for Denver, many workers on the ground earn less than $60,000 annually, often working long hours under emotionally demanding conditions.
Funding Allocation: Mental Health Programs
Both Caring for Denver and SCC operate in critical spaces—mental health and reentry services. Caring for Denver channels taxpayer-generated funds toward grant-making, while SCC directly engages with clients, providing housing assistance, job training, and mental health support. SCC’s alignment with mental health initiatives is vital for the success of reentry efforts, as many formerly incarcerated individuals face untreated mental health challenges.
The concern arises when large portions of taxpayer-generated funds are allocated toward administrative costs and executive salaries rather than bolstering frontline services. Transparency in how mental health programs are funded and executed is essential to maintain public trust.
A Call for Equity and Accountability
Should non-profits funded by taxpayers have limits on executive pay? How do we ensure funds are allocated effectively to maximize impact? These are questions worth exploring. Organizations like SCC, which have maintained a community-focused approach, set an example of how non-profits can thrive without prioritizing excessive administrative costs.
The conversation about non-profit compensation isn’t about devaluing leaders’ contributions but ensuring alignment with the organization’s mission of service. Publicly funded initiatives have a heightened responsibility to demonstrate fiscal prudence and equitable fund distribution, particularly in sectors addressing critical needs like mental health and reentry services.
What’s on your mind? Let’s talk about how we can foster transparency, equity, and impactful service in the non-profit sector.
Justice Unlocked. 
Leave a comment