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
34
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
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 Hidden Hidden 25.2% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 25.1% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2020 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 18.3% 35 Fragile Recovery
2018 19.4% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 15.1% 35 Fragile Recovery
2016 18.3% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 47 Fragile Recovery
2014 12.0% 39 Fragile Decline Risk
2013 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2012 45 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 45 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
HEATHER CAMPAGNO Board Member
KENDRA ZARRILLI Board President
Wendy Kachoogian Secretary
LISA MCCOLLEY Treasurer
JO ANNE MASTROPASQUA Board President
LISA GIOVINE Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
HEATHER CAMPAGNO Board Member 25.4% of Rev
KENDRA ZARRILLI Board President
JOHNNIE BRYANT Secretary
LISA MCCOLLEY Treasurer
JO ANNE MASTROPASQUA Board President
LISA GIOVINE Board President
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
25 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
34 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 175 other orgs in NJ with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 19 points above the peer median (45 vs. 26).

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 26 → 34 over 5 years (improving by 8 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.