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
31
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
40
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
2025 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 Hidden Hidden 64.2% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2022 — — 48.1% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 — — 23.3% 47 Fragile Recovery
2020 — — 4.1% 55 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — 30.7% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 — — 32.8% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2017 — — 34.3% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2016 — — 28.6% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2015 — — 31.3% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2014 — — 20.3% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 — — 24.0% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2012 — — 17.9% 39 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 — — 19.2% 39 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DONNA GRUBBS Executive Director 64.2% of Rev
GARY ARMSTRONG Board Member —
TOM MILES Board Member —
PEGGY RUGGLES Board Member —
MARILYNN HOVDA Board Member —
RYAN CONRAD Board Member —
BRENDA POTTS Board Member —
BEN SMITH Board President —
FRED GRUNERT Secretary —
SHARON BACHINSKI Treasurer —
MARY HOOLEY Board President —

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DONNA GRUBBS Executive Director 64.2% of Rev
MARILYNN HOVDA Board Member —
PEGGY RUGGLES Board Member —
RYAN CONRAD Board Member —
JOHN BARNES Board Member —
BRENDA POTTS Board Member —
GARY ARMSTRONG Board Member —
TOM MILES Board Member —
BEN SMITH Board President —
FRED GRUNERT Secretary —
MARY HOOLEY Board President —
SHARON BACHINSKI Treasurer —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DONNA GRUBBS Executive Director 50.5% of Rev
TOM MILES Board Member —
JOHN BARNES Board Member —
MICHAEL NORTHROP Board Member —
MARILYNN HOVDA Board Member —
PEGGY RUGGLES Board Member —
SHARON BACHINSKI Board Member —
GARY ARMSTRONG Board President —
BEN SMITH Board President —
CATHERINE LAWSON Treasurer —
FRED GRUNERT Secretary —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DONNA GRUBBS Executive Director 52.0% of Rev
JULIE HOWE Board Member —
CHAR CHASE Board Member —
TOM MILES Board Member —
PEGGY RUGGLES Board Member —
MICHAEL NORTHROP Board Member —
JOHN BARNES Board Member —
SHARON BACHINSKI Board Member —
GARY ARMSTRONG Board President —
BEN SMITH Board President —
CATHERINE LAWSON Treasurer —
FRED GRUNERT Secretary —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DONNA GRUBBS Executive Director 52.0% of Rev
SHARON BACHINSKI Board Member —
JOHN BARNES Board Member —
CHAR CHASE Board Member —
JULIE HOWE Board Member —
TOM MILES Board Member —
MICHAEL NORTHROP Board Member —
PEGGY RUGGLES Board Member —
BEN SMITH Board President —
GARY ARMSTRONG Board President —
FRED GRUNERT Secretary —
CATHERINE LAWSON Treasurer —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
31 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 281 other orgs in MI with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: governance score sits 20 points below the peer median (42 vs. 62).

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 64.2% 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.