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
25
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
10
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 26.9% 25 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2022 — — — 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 — — 8.6% 44 Fragile Gov Risk
2020 — — 6.2% 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2019 — — — 58 Fragile Recovery
2018 — — — 55 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 51 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Pamela Laurent Executive Director —
Scott Gregory Board Member —
Don Gregory Board Member —
Heather Ukegawa Board Member —
Jane Bell Board Member —
Karl James Board Member —
Mimi Hoppas Board Member —
Elena Mangiamele Board Member —
Guy Mangiamele Board Member —
Michelle Schneider Board Member —
Jennifer Sutton Board Member —
Karen Moreland Board President —
Beth Fainberg-Glener Treasurer —
Katie Stapko Secretary —

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Pamela Laurent Executive Director 25.7% of Rev
Scott Gregory Board Member 1.2% of Rev
Karen Moreland Board President —
Beth Glener Treasurer —
Don Gregory Board Member —
Elena Mangiamele Board Member —
Guy Mangiamele Board Member —
Jennifer Sutton Board Member —
Jane Bell Board Member —
Heather Ukagawa Board Member —
Michelle Schneider Board Member —
Karl James Board Member —
Katie Stapko Secretary —
Laura Hoffman Secretary —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Samantha Laurent Board Member 3.5% of Rev
Scott Gregory Board Member —
Jane Bell Board Member —
Guy Mangiamele Board Member —
Juli Garon Board Member —
Valencia Porter Board Member —
Don Gregory Board Member —
Karen Moreland Board President —
Jennifer Sutton Treasurer —
Beth Glener Secretary —
Pamela Laurent Executive Director —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Samantha Laurent Board Member 2.5% of Rev
Kelly Ma Board Member —
Don Gregory Board Member —
Barbara Gregory Board Member —
Karen Moreland Board President —
Jennifer Sutton Treasurer —
Beth Glener Secretary —
Pamela Laurent Executive Director —
Scott Gregory Board Member —
Jane Bell Board Member —
Guy Mangiamele Board Member —
Juli Garon Began 72121 Board Member —
Valencia Porter Board Member —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Pamela Laurent Executive Director —
Scott Gregory Executive Director —
Jennifer Sutton Board President —
Karen Moreland Board President —
Beth Fainberg-Glener Secretary —
Laura Fletcher Treasurer —
Jennifer Sutton Treasurer —
Jane Bell Board Member —
John Fletcher Board Member —
Barbara Gregory Board Member —
Don Gregory Board Member —
James Hinrichs Board Member —
Guy Mangiamele Board Member —
Kelly Ma Board Member —
Karen Moreland Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
10 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
25 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 1,424 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 43 points below the peer median (10 vs. 53).

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).
  2. Reduce top-officer compensation from 26.9% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~10 points.

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