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
23
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
5
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Resource Divergence

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2024 45.8% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2023 32.8% 40 Fragile Gov Risk
2022 24.1% 41 Fragile Recovery
2021 26 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DANIEL BLINKOFF Board President
TAMLYN TOMITA Secretary

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MATTHEW PITNER Board Member 17.7% of Rev
PAUL HUNGERFORD CFOTREASURER 17.7% of Rev
JESSICA HANNA Board President 16.6% of Rev
MATTHEW PITNER Board Member 16.6% of Rev
PAUL HUNGERFORD Treasurer 16.6% of Rev
ALISON DE LA CRUZ Board Member 16.0% of Rev
JESSICA HANNA CEOPRESIDENT 15.8% of Rev
TAMLYN TOMITA Secretary
TAMLYN TOMITA Secretary

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JESSICA HANNA CEOPRESIDENT
TAMLYN TOMITA Secretary
PAUL HUNGERFORD CFOTREASURER
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
5 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
23 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 830 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 28 points below the peer median (5 vs. 33).

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.

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 45.8% 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.