Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Huge Salaries for L.A. Treatment Executives Challenged
June 24, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

Tarzana Treatment Centers, an L.A.-based nonprofit drug-treatment program that receives millions in annual government contracts to provide services, is raising eyebrows because of its top executives' generous salaries, compensation packages and business arrangements, the Los Angeles Times reported on June 11.

The program, which gets 85 percent of its funds from taxpayers and is the largest user of public funds in Los Angeles County, has a $45-million annual budget and paid its chief operating officer, Albert Senella, $428,057 in 2007. That was well above the salary for the medical director of Harbor UCLA Medical Center, the highest-paid county employee; the medical center has a budget 12 times the size of Tarzana's.

Scott Taylor, Tarzana's CEO, made $330,732 for 32-hour work weeks.

"These people are making what for-profit people make," said Steven Winston, who makes $173,000 and is the highest-paid executive at the New York-based nonprofit treatment center Daytop Village. "It's anathema to what real nonprofits and real charitable organizations do."

"How many more services could be provided to people who need them" if the executives' salaries were lower? asked Ken Berger, head of the charity watchdog group Charity Navigator.

Along with their salaries, Senella and Taylor got hundreds of thousands more in deferred compensation, according to tax filings. The men also have ownership stakes (along with two other board members) in six properties that are leased by Tarzana as its headquarters and treatment sites. In 2007, the four men received more than $2.27 million in rental payments.

According to tax filings, Tarzana paid Taylor, who is a lawyer, an additional $237,956 in 2007 for legal services.

Tarzana executives said the pay reflects decades of successfully pursing government grants and expanding services. While the center is a nonprofit, "We are allowed to make money as individuals," said Senella.

A majority of what Senella and Taylor earn comes from a group of patients who pay out-of-pocket or with insurance, the county confirmed. That represented $7 million of Tarzana's $45 million revenue in 2007.

Tarzana treats about 6,000 patients annually. Senella heads the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, and Tarzana has won praise for the efficiency of its operations.

"Everyone agrees that they are one of the better providers in the area," said John Viernes Jr., director of the Los Angeles County Alcohol and Drug Program Administration. "We don't tell them what to pay their executives." 

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Peggy on 25 Jun 09 08:34 AM EDT
These guys should not own property leased by the company; that's a conflict. They probably make more than they deserve...however, I don't like the suggestion that people working for non-profits should make less than those working for for-profits. Non-profit just means that they don't sell stock....if the staff's doing a great job, they deserve to be compensated just like anyone else!

Posted by Kim S from the midwest! on 25 Jun 09 08:49 AM EDT
I have been working in the addicion and mental health fields for over 20 years. Located in the midwest, where the costo of living is low, our salaries have been traditionally quite low as well. As a clinical supervisor for a small community mental health clinic in rural Illinois I make about $19.00 per hour. Due to the massive financial problems in our state, all management staff in our organization took pay cuts of 2.5%-5%. Today, we are facing the possibility of having to close down because of massive funding cuts by our state. What is wrong with the system of treatment in this country that such disparity exists for those of us, in the trenches, saving lives?

Posted by Sam on 25 Jun 09 09:03 AM EDT
I agree with Peggy. The real problem I see here is the employees owning property leased back to the agency, along with the agency paying it's own employee for legal services. Where's the Board's oversight? Oh. That's right, they own and lease property back to the agency too.

Posted by john feld on 25 Jun 09 09:10 AM EDT
Perhaps we should consider those salaries appropriate as they have been able to demonstrate effective management skills for their agency. I am interested to know if their clinicians rate of reimbursement is higher than their counterparts across town.

Posted by David on 25 Jun 09 09:23 AM EDT
I agree with Peggy. This idea that non-profit employees should be poor is ridiculous. We have to take care of our families just like everyone else. The executives in this case obviously should not own property belonging to the company. However, while the $428,057 salary seems high, it is only about 1% of their 45 million dollar budget. This means that the executives are responsible for a lot of programs and along with them a lot of headaches. It seems hypocritical to me for society to expect many sectors of the non-profit world to have a certain level of education and certification and then expect those working in that sector to work for much less than someone else with similar qualifications. It cost just as much for someone working in the non-profit field to get their degree as those working in the for-profit sector. It seems to me that this type of thinking is what got us to the point where the government can take over for-profit corporations like GM and tell the CEO’s they can only make a certain salary. The non-profit corporations are still private corporations. That means the government does not get the right to regulate them past the point of their stipulated contractual agreements in funding them.

Posted by Boogie on 25 Jun 09 10:52 AM EDT
This is outrageous and the very reason why I firmly have always beieved in the recovery industry, "it's all about the money" no one in the non profit world should receive this type of money. These programs are supposed to be "client driven" not employee enrichment. These government contracts should be cancelled immediately or at lease suppended until a full investigation is done into the complete business and service efficacy, which if you look at the program, it only an extension of AA and AA is free,duh. Now if a guy dumb enough to buy property and rent it out to himself on the government dime, well I think, that's could be crossing the legal line somewhere. I think this is questional at best. These treatment centers eveluate themselves or the have someone who is favorable to giving them a good outcome based of ($$$$$). With this kind of money a good outcome can always be bought. Let's put the goverment to the challenge of a full investigation. There was an organization like this back in the 87's which suddenly closed its doors under scrutiny, packed their bags and ran like the crooked they were leaving taxpayers holding the bag. Is this, here we go again, or are we smarter now. What's your real opinion? Aren't you tired of wasting millions of dollars on other people's bad habits and bailing them out and letting these jackals get rich. Taxpayers when are we going to stop letting the government screw around with our hard earned money. How about this solution let's send all these "so called alcoholics" to AA or users to NA, It's Free! Wake up America!

Posted by carl on 25 Jun 09 12:31 PM EDT
i wonder if they are paid on the basis of SUCCESS rates of the clients? because if they are i'm sure they wouldn't have those enormous salaries. i'm sure they do good work on the left coast and deserve good salaries--we all do! but something seems a little wrong with this picture!

Posted by Diane on 25 Jun 09 01:14 PM EDT
The problem here is the same as with all corporations in America, regardless of profit status. The people at the top are paid hundreds of times more than the employees at the bottom. It isn't illegal, except for maybe for those few companies that the government has decided need to cut back in order to receive bailout money. An additional problem is that prior to the previous administration, it had been illegal for more than 50 years for people to have dual relationships with their companies, clients, and goverment overseeers, meaning they could not be both an employee and an investor or contractor. Double-dipping was illegal. Now it is not, and the administrators are able to collect an outrageous salary as well as money from land contracts, trademarked tx programs, and who knows what else. For the CEO's, it really is all about money, but for the average employee who works diligently with the sick and addicted, it is about helping make people well. To pay them minimum wage or their directors $19/hr is criminal. Success is typically measured in terms of recidivism and many high-profile users of drugs and alcohol are not true addicts like the vast majority of the clients that we serve, so their chance of recidivating is generally very low to begin with. They skew the data, thereby raising the success level of agencies like these as compared to small not-of-profit agencies that rely on local government dollars and income from self-pay clients who cannot afford to pay the full cost of their service.

Posted by PNW on 25 Jun 09 01:20 PM EDT
Boogie, you didn't read the article in its entirety, obviously. It said that the salaries were not drawn off of government funds, but the part of the revenue that comes from clients that pay out of pocket and insurance. It also said that the county recognizes they are one of the better providers. Again, non-profit organizations are not required to make sure that their employees are impoverished...they can compensate as they see fit. The status of being a non profit should not equate with employee poverty, as it too often does. This gut level reaction is jealousy more than anything, as those of us who have been in the NPO world know that non profits don't pay well. Well, I think that if they did pay better, there likely would be better outcomes and better qualified , less burned out people in the field.

Posted by Boogie on 25 Jun 09 02:16 PM EDT
PNW, I stand by my statement Non-Profits are not for the excessive enrichment of individuals and let the investigation prove otherwise because "something in the milk ain't white". The implications about the salaries is this if they are donated dollars, they are public funds. The article did not say all the money for their salaries came from other sources. The word I read was "majority" meaning they were also getting public funds to supplemnet their income. I don't have a problem with making making whatever in the profit world, but this not right by any standards of non profit organizatgions. Why don't they simply change their status to "forprofit". Otherwise not only do these guys but all NPO Ceo's who are getting rich under the heading of NPO needs to be investigated. Wake up America. Stop getting Pimped by con mem. Non Profit means?

Posted by Freddie Simons on 25 Jun 09 04:04 PM EDT
This is abosultely "Highway Robbery" in my opinion. Worst than the Wall Street Hustlers. How dare they Rip Off the public by calling themselves a private/non-profit. Their annual budget is 43 million, they serve 6,000 annually and the boss makes $428,000. L.A. public schools annual budget is 20 billion, they serve 695,288 students per year and their Superintendent earns $300,000 annually. IS THIS SOME KIND OF JOKE!!!! Run these guys out of town NOW!!!!!

Posted by Vicent Walker on 26 Jun 09 11:25 AM EDT
Big deal. I have referred friends and colleagues to Tarzana Treatment Center. It is a top notch program. As long as the dealings of their Board are ethical, I am not going to tell them how to compensate their executives. They could probably use some new blood on their board, but otherwise I really can’t tell from the article if there is a problem other than people making more money than the reporter thinks appropriate. There’s a difference between the news and the facts. There has always been this thinking that you are not a real non-profit unless staff are underpaid, overworked and unappreciated. You’re getting uppity if you replace the folding chairs in the waiting room or buy a computer that works. As far as AOD services are concerned, I think stigma is in the mix as well. If society sees AOD users as low-life criminal scum, how do we (and society) we see ourselves? Don’t we deserve a living wage? Do we deserve a comfortable income? Are the lives we save worth so little that we deserve to be so poorly paid? Exploiting personal commitment as an unspoken rationale for paying rock bottom wages is unethical. I have drifted a bit, but the real problem is far bigger than compensation for a few executives in LA.

Posted by Boogie on 26 Jun 09 01:31 PM EDT
The one thing about "steppers" are they know how to step together after all who do you think runs the AOD programs. So called "alcoholics and addicts". When was the last time you put the Fox in charge of watching the chickens and expected the Fox to be anything other than a Fox. I rest my case for a change in the way taxpayer funds are handled by the treatment industry Foxes. Wake up America!

Posted by Mark Young on 29 Jun 09 12:13 PM EDT
There are two obvious conflicts-of-interest: (1) collecting legal fees from your company in addition to your salary; as CEO you are ordering the services, and (2) leasing property to your non-profit when you have an ownership interest in the property. I find it hard to believe that California law governing non-profits allows either of these practices. Having said that, I will add that Tarzana's cost of less than $8,000 per client served is fairly low, but that does depend on the types of services offerred.

Posted by Rajiv Bhole on 29 Jun 09 01:25 PM EDT
Boogie, although membership in AA & NA is free, the member pay a lot to AA/NA for their recovery. They both make about 10 million each year by selling their books and merchandise. And the matter of great concern for addicts in NA is that their executives are not informing them how much they make. Finally this year some addicts found from the tax returns and reported that the chief executive's salary in 2007 was over $200,000, while in 2005 it had been about $120,000. Why, because NA's world convention in 2007 showed a loss of over $600,000 for the 1st time? And now they've budgeted a loss of 1.2 million for their 2009 convention? There was a heated discussion on this matter on the net a few months back and I think this too needs to be investigated. The addicts of NA are too divided and are being taken for a ride.

Posted by John on 01 Jul 09 11:22 AM EDT
I agree with the need to see what the pay of the actual"workers" is as opposed to the executives.I left non-profit work for this exact reason. I could not live off what they paid counselors.

Posted by jrzshor on 08 Jul 09 10:12 AM EDT
its a SCAM! and pretty good one.

Posted by Sven on 23 Jul 09 01:21 PM EDT
All this is only getting this much attention because we are in a recession. I guarantee that if "we" all still had our SUV's full of gas and lines of credit on our house NONE of this would be getting this much attention. Would you want their job for $50K/year? I don't think so. You couldn't do their job for 50K. Where do we get the idea that running medical clinics, residential treatment facilities, sober living houses and case management services have to be CHARITY based? This is business just like everything else...

Posted by Sal on 23 Jul 09 08:43 PM EDT
The rehab industry is just as rife with scandal as any other. The Los Angeles based rehab I used to work for has a sister sober living house. That sober living house has two liens from two casinos against it, according to County Assessor records. Last time I checked, gambling was as much of an addiction as drugs or alcohol. Very hypocritical on the part of the owner(s). This rehab is a non-profit that hasn't paid its employees on time for years now, and it holds several government contracts as well. Sad.

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines