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
22
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 — — 28.2% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 — — — 23 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 — — 21.1% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 — — — 28 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 — — 12.1% 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 — — — 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 — — — 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2016 — — — 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 — — — 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 — — — 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 — — — 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2012 — — 4.6% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2011 — — — 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MAVIA HARDIMAN Board Member —
MARY ANN MOORE Board Member —
PASTOR DEREK SCOBY Board Member —
ANGELA SCOBY Board Member —
DR GLORIA ANDERSON Board President —
GARLAND PRUITT Board President —
VIVIANETTE LEWIS Secretary —
DR ROSEMARY HARKINS Treasurer —
EZEKIEL JENKINS Board Member —
DR KEITH HARDIMAN Board Member —
HORACE STEVENSON Board Member —
MARK TEMPLE Board Member —
ANITA ARNOLD Executive Director —
ERIKA ARBERTHA Board Member —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MAVIA HARDIMAN Board Member —
EZEKIEL JENKINS Board Member —
ANGELA SCOBEY Board Member —
MARK TEMPLE Board Member —
HORACE STEVENSON Board Member —
DR KEITH HARDIMAN Board Member —
PASTOR DERRICK SCOBEY Board Member —
MARY ANN MOORE Board Member —
ERIKA ARBERTHA Board Member —
ANITA G ARNOLD Executive Director —
DR ROSEMARY HARKINS Treasurer —
GARLAND PRUITT Board President —
DR GLORIA ANDERSON Board President —
VIVIANETTE LEWIS Secretary —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ANITA G ARNOLD Executive Director —
DR ROSEMARY HARKINS Treasurer —
DR NORMA SIMPSON Secretary —
DR GLORIA ANDERSON Board President —
DR ZELDRA BRYANT Board Member —
GARLAND PRUITT Board President —
CHERYL JACKSON Board Member —
DR WINSTON PRESCOTT Board Member —
EZEKIEL JENKINS DIRCTOR —
MAVIA HARDEMAN Board Member —
VIVIANETTE LEWIS Board Member —
DR KEITH HARDIMAN Board Member —
HORACE STEVENSON Board Member —
MARK TEMPLE 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
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
22 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 52 other orgs in OK with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 69 points below the peer median (0 vs. 69).

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 → 22 over 5 years (declining by 13 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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 28.2% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~12 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.