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
30
Score
Governance
55
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
45
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 Hidden Hidden 9.1% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 11.2% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2021 13.3% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 12.7% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 14.1% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 17.1% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 14.1% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2016 4.8% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 18.4% 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 47 Fragile Recovery
2013 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Gretchen Pick Executive Director 7.3% of Rev
Gretchen Godfrey Board President
Nicole Hinrichs-Bideau Board President
Paul McCluskey Treasurer
Elsabet Roth Secretary
Catianne Ngante Board Member
Jonathan Morris Board Member
Rich Stever-Zietlin Board President
Roo Case Board Member
Esme Michaelson Board Member
Lainey Lee 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
55 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
30 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 174 other orgs in MN with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 38 points below the peer median (0 vs. 38).

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 31 → 30 over 5 years (declining by 1 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. 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.