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
39
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 39 Fragile Recovery
2022 36.1% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 28.4% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 41.5% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JESS FROST Board President 27.6% of Rev
LORING BOLGER Board President
HELEN HARRISON Secretary
JUDITH HASELTON Treasurer
IRA BAROCAS Board Member
JENNIFER CROSS Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JESS FROST Board President 24.8% of Rev
LORING BOLGER VICE PRESIDE
HELEN HARRISON Secretary
IRA BAROCAS Board Member
JENNIFER CROSS Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JESS FROST Board President 19.6% of Rev
LORING BOLGER Board President
HELEN HARRISON Secretary
PETER WATROUS Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
25 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
39 / 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 NY with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 14 points above the peer median (45 vs. 31).

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.

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.