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
26
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
5
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2023 Hidden Hidden 21.1% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 — — 15.1% 24 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 — — 17.2% 47 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — 9.1% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 — — — 42 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 37 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2016 — — — 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2015 — — — 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
GAIL BECKER Board Member 8.5% of Rev
ANDREW ABRAMS Artistic Director 5.3% of Rev
PATRICK BARLOW Board Member —
MARIA HANSON Board President —
W EARLE SMITH Treasurer —
BONNIE ABRAMS Secretary —
AARON DEETS Board Member —
DIANE BLESS Board Member —
SHERI RICE Board Member —
MONA NELSON Board Member —
MARK DASPIT Board Member —
AMY FLESCH Board Member —
TERI FULTON Board Member —
ANGIE GAREY Board Member —
LORI RODEN Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
5 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
26 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 182 other orgs in WI with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 51 points below the peer median (5 vs. 56).

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 42 → 26 over 5 years (declining by 16 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. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
  2. Build cash reserves to at least 3 months of operating expenses — moves financial resilience score meaningfully (~10 points).

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