Structural Deficit
Structural Deficit
Structural Deficit Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
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
51
Score
Governance
58
Score
Financial
40
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 — — 3.5% 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 — — 3.5% 51 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — — 36 Fragile Recovery
2014 — — — 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 — — — 32 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 — — — 36 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 — — — 36 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ANTHONY CUNEO EXECUTIVE DI 3.6% of Rev
LAURA WEINTRAUB Board President —
LYNN BLACK Board President —
GEIGER YOUNT Treasurer —
KENDRA CARLSON Board Member —
APARNA KATRE Board Member —
WILLIAM PAYNE Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ANTHONY CUNEO EXECUTIVE DI 3.3% of Rev
LAURA WEINTRAUB Board President —
FRANCIS HEID Board President —
GEIGER YOUNT Treasurer —
APARNA KATRE Board Member —
LYNN BLACK Board Member —
JON HEYESEN Board Member —
KENDRA CARLSON Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
58 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
51 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 169 other orgs in MN with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 28 points below the peer median (40 vs. 68).

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

No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.