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
40
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 Hidden Hidden 17.1% 40 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2022 46 Fragile Gov Risk
2021 12.0% 52 Fragile Gov Risk
2020 1.2% 60 Stable Stable Watch
2019 1.0% 54 Fragile Recovery
2017 53 Fragile Recovery
2016 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 57 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 57 Fragile Recovery
2012 37 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CHRISTOPHER GOLDSTON Board Member
REBECCA GEBBINK Secretary
JIAFENG YAN Board President
YEESEON KWON Board President
JEFFREY KLEINSORGE Treasurer
NANCY LILEY Board Member
CYNTHIA PAPIERNIAK Board President
PEI-I WANG Board Member
ROCHELLE SENNET Board President
JOSEPH WELCH Board President

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CHRISTOPHER GOLDSTON Board Member 15.1% of Rev
PEI-I WANG Board Member 2.0% of Rev
REBECCA GEBBINK Secretary
JIAFENG YAN Board President
YEESEON KWON Board President
JEFFREY KLEINSORGE Treasurer
NANCY LILEY Board Member
CYNTHIA PAPIERNIAK Board President
ROCHELLE SENNET Board President
JOSEPH WELCH Board President

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CHRISTOPHER GOLDSTON Board Member 11.9% of Rev
PEI-I WANG Treasurer 1.2% of Rev
REBECCA GEBBINKS Secretary
JIAFENG YAN Board President
YEESEON KWON Board President
JEFFREY KLEINSORGE Board President
JENNIFER COHEN Board Member
NANCY LILEY Board Member
CHEE HYEON CHOI Board President
CATHERINE FOREMAN Board President
ILIA RADOSLAVOV Board President

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JEFFREY KLEINSORGE Board President 1.2% of Rev
CHRISTOPHER GOLDSTON Board President
JUNGHWA LEE Board President
LYNETTE ZELIS Board Member
YEESEON KWON Board President
JENNIFER COHEN Board Member
NANCY LILEY Board Member
CHEE HYEON CHOI Board President
KATHY HOSTER Secretary
PEI-I WANG TRASURER
ILIA RADOSLAVOV Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JEFFREY KLEINSORGE Board President 1.2% of Rev
CHRISTOPHER GOLDSON Board President
JUNGHWA LEE Board President
LINDA BARKER Board President
YEESEON KWON Board President
DR JANICE L RAZAQ NCTM Board Member
JENNIFER COHEN Board Member
NANCY LILEY Board Member
CHEE HYEON CHOI Board President
KATHY HOSTER Secretary
PEI-I WANG TRASURER
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
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
40 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 196 other orgs in IL with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 29 points above the peer median (65 vs. 36).

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. 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.