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
55
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 Hidden Hidden 8.9% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 9.3% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 4.4% 42 Fragile Gov Risk
2020 6.2% 40 Fragile Recovery
2019 2.0% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DEANNA PELLECCHIA Board President 15.6% of Rev
DENNIS PELLECCHIA Treasurer
JOSEPH PIRELLI Secretary
HINDA MARCUS Board Member
MARA MAYER Board Member
HIEU NGUYEN Board Member
CEDRIC ADAMS Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DEANNA PELLECCHIA Board President 6.7% of Rev
DENNIS PELLECCHIA Treasurer
JOSEPH PIRELLI Secretary
HINDA MARCUS Board Member
MARA MAYER Board Member
HIEU NGUYEN Board Member
CEDRIC ADAMS Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DEANNA PELLECCHIA Board President 2.8% of Rev
DENNIS PELLECCHIA Treasurer
JOSEPH PIRELLI Secretary
HINDA MARCUS Board Member
MARA MAYER Board Member
HIEU NGUYEN Board Member
CEDRIC ADAMS Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
15 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
55 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 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 245 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 27 points below the peer median (15 vs. 42).

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. 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.