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.
Title
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
Historical Performance
| Year | Revenue | Top Comp | Comp % Rev | Score | Phase Label | Outlook | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Hidden | Hidden | 31.8% | 22 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2022 | — | — | 19.4% | 37 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2021 | — | — | 31.8% | 22 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2020 | — | — | 5.9% | 38 | Financially Distressed | Recovery | |
| 2019 | — | — | 7.3% | 34 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2018 | — | — | 8.5% | 38 | Financially Distressed | Recovery | |
| 2016 | — | — | 10.8% | 35 | Financially Distressed | Recovery | |
| 2015 | — | — | 4.7% | 37 | Financially Distressed | Stable Watch | |
| 2014 | — | — | 7.6% | 36 | Financially Distressed | Recovery | |
| 2013 | — | — | — | 43 | Fragile | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gil Rose | Executive Director | 86.6% of Rev | ||
| Sam Mawn-Maulau | Treasurer | — | ||
| Samuel Bruskin | Secretary | — |
Tax year 2022
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gil Rose | Executive Director | 82.8% of Rev | ||
| Sam Mawn-Maulau | Treasurer | — | ||
| Samuel Bruskin | Secretary | — |
Tax year 2021
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gil Rose | Executive Director | 87.0% of Rev | ||
| Sam Mawn-Maulau | Treasurer | — | ||
| Samuel Bruskin | Secretary | — |
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 245 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: financial score sits 42 points below the peer median (0 vs. 42).
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 34 → 22 over 5 years (declining by 12 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.
What's driving this score
- Comp-to-revenue ratio of 31.8% is above the 90th percentile for orgs of this size (healthy band: 18–22%).
- Financial resilience score in the bottom quartile — reserves and liabilities ratios warrant review.
What would change this score
The two changes that would most improve this score:
- Reduce top-officer compensation from 31.8% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~20 points.
- 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.