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
50
Score
Financial
5
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2022 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 38 Financially Distressed Recovery
2020 1.1% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Clay Hecocks Board Member
Robert Hagood Board President
Susan Hagood Secretary
Patricia Detweiler Board President
John Detweiler Treasurer

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Clay Hecocks Board Member
Robert Hagood Board President
Susan Hagood Secretary
Patricia Detweiler Board President
John Detweiler Treasurer

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Patricia Detweiler Board President 0.5% of Rev
Carly Detweiller Willacey Board Member
John Detweiler Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
5 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 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 244 other orgs in FL with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 25 points below the peer median (5 vs. 30).

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 35 → 34 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.