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
34
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
30
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Resource Divergence

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2020 40.9% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2019 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 9.7% 54 Fragile Recovery
2017 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 49 Fragile Recovery
2015 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 49 Fragile Recovery
2013 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2012 53 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 57 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
David Engle Board President
Lorraine Vagner Vice President
Micah Wallace Vice President
Patricia Webber Secretary
Lynn Marlow Treasurer
Larry Crockett Board Member
Sam Feinson Board Member
Brian Goodman Board Member
Tracy Grisman Board Member
Martha Worthley Board Member
Teresa Verraes Executive Director

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Michael D'Alessandro Executive Director Hidden
Patti Barrett Secretary
Sam Feinson Board Member
Brian Goodman Board Member
Scott Pascoe Board Member
Karen Putterman Board Member
Thya Merz Board President
Jean Stastny Treasurer
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
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
34 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 236 other orgs in WA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 11 points below the peer median (30 vs. 41).

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 49 → 34 over 5 years (declining by 15 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. Reduce top-officer compensation from 40.9% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~38 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.