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
30
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 15.2% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 12.2% 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 9.3% 36 Financially Distressed Recovery
2019 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JOY CAPPONI Artistic Director 12.5% of Rev
PATRICK CHERRY Board President
CHRISTINE SETTINO Board Member
DOMINIC CAPPONI Treasurer
KOERT WEHBERG Board Member
Amber Brown Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JOY CAPPONI Artistic Director 4.7% of Rev
PATRICK CHERRY Board President
CHRISTINE SETTINO Board Member
DOMINIC CAPPONI Treasurer
KOERT WEHBERG Board Member
Amber Brown Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
15 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
30 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 295 other orgs in PA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 23 points below the peer median (15 vs. 38).

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 31 → 30 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. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
  2. 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.