Structural Deficit
Structural Deficit
Structural Deficit Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint

Structural Deficit

What does this mean?

Persistently low financial health over 5 years despite strong programmatic output. They are borrowing from their future (or bleeding an endowment) to pay for today's programs.

The Path Forward

The Truth-Teller

Forces necessary, painful cuts to preserve the core. It demands that the organization stop borrowing from its future and align its current programmatic output with actual sustainable revenue.

The Truth-Teller
The Truth-Teller
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Structural Deficit
Overall
29
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
60
Score

Institutional Epochs

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Structural Deficit

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2023 16.7% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 15.3% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 14.5% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 23.5% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 19.5% 39 Fragile Recovery
2018 13.7% 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2017 16.3% 35 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2016 12.2% 42 Fragile Recovery
2015 14.4% 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 7.7% 44 Fragile Recovery
2013 12.7% 48 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 10.7% 48 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
EDWARD ELLISON Board President 10.0% of Rev
DIANE STASIO Secretary 6.3% of Rev

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
EDWARD ELLISON Board President 7.7% of Rev
DIANE STASIO Secretary 5.7% of Rev
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
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
29 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Fewer than 3 peers found in NY for this NTEE subcategory; peer comparison would not be statistically meaningful.

5-year trend: Structural Deficit

Persistently low financial health over 5 years despite strong programmatic output. They are borrowing from their future (or bleeding an endowment) to pay for today's programs.

Overall score has gone from 39 → 29 over 5 years (declining by 10 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. 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.