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
44
Score
Governance
55
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
60
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
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 — — 8.4% 44 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 — — 9.5% 44 Fragile Stable Watch
2021 — — 8.6% 44 Fragile Recovery
2020 — — 10.8% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 — — 6.9% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 — — 7.7% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 — — 7.7% 36 Financially Distressed Recovery
2016 — — 7.9% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 — — 7.2% 38 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2014 — — 6.6% 38 Financially Distressed Recovery
2013 — — 6.0% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 — — 6.2% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2011 — — 5.0% 35 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2010 — — 5.4% 38 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
HARRIET BECKER Board Member —
JEFFREY S WIESENFELD Board Member —
PATRICIA SCHNEIDER Board Member —
ALAN MINDEL Board Member —
MICHAEL T LAMORETTI Board Member —
JEAN CELENDER Board Member —
EILEEN SARROFF Board Member —
JUDI LIMAN Board Member —
DANA GUO Board Member —
CAROLYN S HESSEL Board Member —
JOSEPH GIL Vice President —
DOHN S SCHILDKRAUT Vice President —
RALPH HEIMAN EXECUTIVE VPTREASURER —
MICHELE HEIMAN Secretary —
MICKI SCHILDKRAUT Board Member —
MICHAEL C GLICKMAN CHAIRMAN —
REGINA KELLER GIL Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
REGINA KELLER GIL Board Member 8.4% of Rev
MICHAEL T LAMORETTI Board Member —
ALAN MINDEL Board Member —
JEAN CELENDER Board Member —
JUDI LIMAN Board Member —
EILEEN SARROFF Board Member —
PATRICIA SCHNEIDER Board Member —
HARRIET BECKER Board Member —
JEFFREY S WIESENFELD Board Member —
MARIO RECINOS Board Member —
MICHELE HEIMAN Secretary —
MICKI SCHILDKRAUT Board Member —
MICHAEL C GLICKMAN CHAIRMAN —
RALPH HEIMAN EXECUTIVE VPTREASURER —
MARTIN SOKOL Board Member —
CAROLYN S HESSEL Board Member —
DOHN S SCHILDKRAUT Vice President —
JOSEPH GIL Vice President —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
REGINA GIL Executive Director 7.9% of Rev
BETTY MERON Board Member —
JERRY SIEGELMAN MEMBERS AT LARGE —
RICHARD BLAU Board Member —
ANTHONY J BONOMO Board Member —
JOSEPH GIL Vice President —
DOHN SAMUEL SCHILDKRAUT Vice President —
RALPH HEIMAN Board President —
MICHELE HEIMAN Secretary —
JON KAIMAN Board President —
HARRIET BECKER Board Member —
MARTIN SOKOL MEMBERS AT LARGE —
MICHAEL GLICKMAN Board President —
CAROLYN STARMAN HESSEL Board Member —
JEFFREY S WIESENFELD MEMBERS AT LARGE —
MARIO RECINOS Board Member —
PATRICIA SCHNEIDER Board Member —
ALAN MINDEL Board Member —
MICHAEL T LAMORETTI Board Member —
JEAN CELENDER Board Member —
EILEEN SARROFF Board Member —
MICKI SCHILDKRAUT Board Member —
STEVEN BLANK MEMBERS AT LARGE —
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
55 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
44 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 1,227 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 31 points above the peer median (60 vs. 29).

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.