Acute Resource Divergence
Acute Resource Divergence
Acute Resource Divergence Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Stable
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
85
Score
Governance
85
Score
Financial
80
Score
Program
Score

Institutional Epochs

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

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2020 58.5% 13 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 26.1% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 34.9% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 26.2% 19 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 41.8% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2015 18.5% 37 Fragile Recovery
2014 22.8% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2013 30.4% 15 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 24.4% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2011 16.8% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Jennifer Turnbull Executive Director 29.3% of Rev
Liza Goodell Executive Director 29.3% of Rev
Accra Zuberi Board President
Sean Stoops Board Member
De'Wayne Drummond Board Member
Aviva Kapust Board Member
Matt Neff Board Member
Christianne Kapps Treasurer
Deirdre Groenen Board Member
Kate Farquhar Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
80 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
85 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
0 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
85 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 502 other orgs in US with NTEE prefix W2.

Most-divergent component: governance score sits 0 points above the peer median (85 vs. 85).

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.

Overall score has gone from 28 → 13 over 5 years (declining by 15 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

What's driving this score

What would change this score

No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.