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
24
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 21.8% 24 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 36.9% 19 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 9.9% 40 Fragile Recovery
2020 51 Fragile Recovery
2019 17.0% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 49 Fragile Recovery
2017 47 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2016 51 Fragile Recovery
2015 47 Fragile Recovery
2014 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Carla Milarch Board President 15.8% of Rev
David Wolber Board Member 7.9% of Rev
Philip Powers Secretary 0.9% of Rev
Rebecca Fox Board Member 0.5% of Rev
Catherine Zudak Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Carla Milarch Board President 4.3% of Rev
David Wolber Board Member 2.9% of Rev
Philip Powers Secretary 0.5% of Rev
Rebecca Fox Board Member
Catherine Zudak Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
0 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
24 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 185 other orgs in MI 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 31 → 24 over 5 years (declining by 7 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
  2. 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.