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
27
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 46.8% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2022 14.1% 45 Fragile Recovery
2021 5.7% 45 Fragile Recovery
2020 5.8% 42 Financially Distressed Recovery
2019 4.0% 42 Financially Distressed Recovery
2018 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 55 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 57 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 57 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 61 Stable Stable Watch
2013 45 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Stephawn Stephens Executive Direc 14.3% of Rev
Pamela Jafari Managing Direct 3.6% of Rev
Paul Marengo Development Dir 1.5% of Rev
Pat Wheeler Board President
Robert E Person Secretary
Dr Emory Andrews Board Member
Joyce Woodson Vice Chairperso
Barbara Boyd Board Member
John C Johnson Treasurer

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
M Adele Robey Executive Dir. 3.4% of Rev
Ella Davis Board Member 1.9% of Rev
Patrick Martin Treasurer
Cheryl Hawkins Board Member
Jennifer V Lee Board Member
Wilma Lynn Horton Board Member
Peter Chun Board President
Carolyn Thomas Board Member
Stephawn Stephens Board Member
Margaret Ward Secretary
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
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
27 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 56 other orgs in DC with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 10 points below the peer median (15 vs. 25).

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 42 → 27 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 46.8% 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.