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
21
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2022 42.8% 21 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 17.2% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 11.4% 51 Fragile Recovery
2019 43 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 51 Fragile Recovery
2017 47 Fragile Recovery
2016 47 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DLECINE WILKINS Executive Dir. 17.3% of Rev
TAMMY MONTGOMERY Unspecified Role 9.6% of Rev
ANGELA WIGGINS Unspecified Role 5.9% of Rev
MICHAEL WILKINS III Unspecified Role 4.0% of Rev
ANGRESTASIA GROVER Unspecified Role 3.1% of Rev
LISA CLAIBORNE Unspecified Role 2.9% of Rev

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DLECINE WILKINS Executive Dir. 4.9% of Rev
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
0 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
21 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 195 other orgs in IL with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 36 points below the peer median (0 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.

Overall score has gone from 51 → 21 over 5 years (declining by 30 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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 42.8% 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.