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
11
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2019 42.6% 11 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 38.9% 21 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2017 36.9% 25 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2016 21.9% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 27.9% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2014 23.8% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2013 21.6% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2012 35 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 35 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

No IRS 990 Part VII compensation data available for this organization.

Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
0 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
11 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 246 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 42 points below the peer median (0 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.

Overall score has gone from 23 → 11 over 5 years (declining by 12 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 42.6% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~40 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.