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
26
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
0
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 31.8% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2022 38.7% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2021 17.4% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2020 28 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 27.7% 24 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2016 7.9% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 22.2% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2012 27.9% 20 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2011 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Dr Anthony Hailey Board President 27.5% of Rev

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Dr Anthony Hailey Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Dr Anthony Hailey Board President
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
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
26 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 146 other orgs in VA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 36 points below the peer median (0 vs. 36).

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 → 26 over 5 years (declining by 5 points).

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 31.8% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~20 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.