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 103 other orgs in WI with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 32 points below the peer median (5 vs. 37).

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.