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
40
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
30
Score
Program
60
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
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 — — 35.8% 40 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2022 — — 7.4% 54 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — 10.9% 51 Fragile Recovery
2020 — — 15.2% 39 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2019 — — 16.5% 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 — — 10.4% 48 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 — — 4.1% 55 Fragile Recovery
2016 — — 17.9% 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2015 — — 5.1% 54 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 — — 6.1% 54 Fragile Recovery
2013 — — 7.2% 50 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 — — 8.4% 50 Fragile Recovery
2011 — — 9.1% 46 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DEBORAH KLOCHKO Executive Dir. 11.9% of Rev
VIVIENNE ESRIG Board Member 7.7% of Rev
JOHN MULLEN Board President —
JON DOELLSTEDT Board Member —
KEN HERTZ Board Member —
RICHARD OPPER Board Member —
CHERYL HAMER Board Member —
STEPHANIE BERGSMA Board Member —
KATHLEEN STOUGHTON Board Member —
LISA MILLER Secretary —
KEN CARIFFE Treasurer —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DEBORAH KLOCHKO Executive Dir. 11.4% of Rev
VIVIENNE ESRIG Board Member 6.8% of Rev
JOHN MULLEN Board President —
JOHN DOELLSTEDT Board Member —
SUDA HOUSE Board Member —
CLAUDIA SALAZAR Board Member —
RICHARD OPPER Board Member —
CHRISTOPHER KOZO Board Member —
LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN Board Member —
STEPHANIE BERGSMA Board President —
LISA BROCKMAN Treasurer —
MARY-ROSE MUELLER Board Member —
KATHLEEN STOUGHTON Board Member —
PATRICIA JUDD Board Member —
LISA MILLER Secretary —
MERRY CRISTIANI Board Member —
KEN CARIFFE Board Member —
REGINALD JONES Board Member —
YITAH LEE Board Member —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DEBORAH KLOCHKO Executive Dir. 11.6% of Rev
VIVIENNE ESRIG Board Member 7.7% of Rev
JOHN MULLEN Board President —
JON DOELLSTEDT Board Member —
SUDA HOUSE Board Member —
CHRIS KOZO Board Member —
RICHARD OPPER Board President —
DOUG SAIN Board Member —
JEFFREY RESSLER Board Member —
RON FRIEDMAN Board Member —
STEPHANIE BERGSMA Secretary —
LISA BROCKMAN Treasurer —
LAURA GALINSON Board Member —
MARY-ROSE MUELLER Board Member —
KATHLEEN STOUGHTON Board Member —
PAT JUDD Board Member —
LISA MILLER Board Member —
MERRY CRISTIANI Board Member —
KEN A CARIFFE Board Member —
REGINALD JONES Board Member —
YITAH LEE Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
30 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
40 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 1,425 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 29 points above the peer median (60 vs. 31).

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 41 → 40 over 5 years (declining by 1 points).

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 35.8% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~28 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.