Acute Resource Divergence
Acute Resource Divergence
Acute Resource Divergence Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint

Acute Resource Divergence

What does this mean?

Revenue is contracting significantly, but executive compensation percentage is rising. The organization is refusing to adjust its administrative overhead to match its new economic reality.

The Path Forward

The Realignment

Forces immediate balancing of administrative bloat against actual programmatic output. It demands that every dollar extracted for overhead be justified by community impact.

The Realignment
The Realignment
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Acute Resource Divergence
Overall
19
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
5
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Resource Divergence

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 42.1% 19 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2022 52.0% 24 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 29.6% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 13.9% 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2019 7.0% 46 Fragile Recovery
2018 30.2% 24 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 23.0% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 12.2% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 12.4% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2014 26.5% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 27.6% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2012 24.4% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2011 24.4% 37 Fragile Gov Risk

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER HALTZMAN TRACY Executive Director 42.1% of Rev
JAMIE CRISTALI Board Member
SUSAN FOX Board Member
PIERRE BOHEMOND Board Member
TRINETTE SINGLETON Board Member
LINDA ROSENFELD Board Member
MARK HALTZMAN Board Member
BRIAN DONNELLY Board President
ERIC FEINSTEIN Board Member
DICK BUTTON Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER HALTZMAN-TRACY Executive Director 42.1% of Rev
BRIAN DONNELLY Board President
LINDA ROSENFELD Secretary
PIERRE BOHEMOND Board Member
ERIC FEINSTEIN Board Member
H ELLIS FINGER Board Member
SUSAN B FOX Board Member
MARK S HALTZMAN ESQ Board Member
TRINETTE SINGLETON Board Member
JAMIE CRISTALI Board Member
RICHARD BUTTON Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER HALTZMAN-TRACY Executive Director 42.1% of Rev
BRIAN DONNELLY Board President
LINDA ROSENFELD Secretary
PIERRE BOHEMOND Board Member
ERIC FEINSTEIN Board Member
H ELLIS FINGER Board Member
SUSAN B FOX Board Member
MARK S HALTZMAN ESQ Board Member
TRINETTE SINGLETON Board Member
JAMIE CRISTALI Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER HALTZMAN-TRACY Executive Director 42.1% of Rev
BRIAN DONNELLY Board President
LINDA ROSENFELD Secretary
PIERRE BOHEMOND Board Member
ERIC FEINSTEIN Board Member
H ELLIS FINGER Board Member
SUSAN B FOX Board Member
MARK S HALTZMAN ESQ Board Member
TRINETTE SINGLETON Board Member
JAMIE CRISTALI Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
5 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
19 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 296 other orgs in PA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 33 points below the peer median (5 vs. 38).

5-year trend: Acute Resource Divergence

Revenue is contracting significantly, but executive compensation percentage is rising. The organization is refusing to adjust its administrative overhead to match its new economic reality.

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 42.1% 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.