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
44
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2023 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2022 46.9% 44 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2021 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 9.7% 59 Fragile Recovery
2019 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 51 Fragile Recovery
2016 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 51 Fragile Recovery
2014 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2013 47 Fragile Recovery
2012 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER TIERNEY Treasurer 26.3% of Rev
KRISTOPHER ESTES Secretary 20.6% of Rev
JESSICA BROWN Board President
JESSE COOPER Board Member
CLARISSA SMITH MD Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER TIERNEY Board President 13.1% of Rev
TONY WITT Secretary
JESSE COOPER Board Member
CLARISSA SMITH MD Treasurer
JESSICA BROWN Board President
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
65 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
44 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 60 other orgs in KS with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 22 points above the peer median (65 vs. 43).

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 46.9% 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.