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
35
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2025 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 — — — 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 — — — 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 — — 31.9% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2020 — — 29.6% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2019 — — 15.8% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 — — — 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 — — 30.3% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 — — 35.5% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 — — 38.7% 24 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 — — 37.3% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 — — 32.0% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 — — 37.6% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KATHLEEN ALMAND Board Member —
TURNER BLEDSOE Board Member —
CATHERINE CAMPBELL VICE PRESIDE —
AMY BORDES DELANEY Board Member —
LAURIE ANN DROGIN Board Member —
ELISABETH FINN Board Member —
LIBERTY FONTS Board Member —
WILLIAM FORD Treasurer —
DENVER GIBBS Board Member —
AZHAR KARACHI VICE PRESIDE —
THOMAS KENT Board Member —
JOHN MORGAN Board Member —
BEGUM OKUTGEN Board Member —
PAUL PECCI Board President —
MARIO PEREZ Board Member —
ADITYA RENGASWAMY Board Member —
KUCKU VERGHASE Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KAREN THOMPSON Executive Director 19.5% of Rev
BEGUM OKUTGEN Board Member —
STACIE MADDEN Board President —
MATTHEW NELSON Board Member —
KATHLEEN ALMAND Secretary —
PAUL PECCI Board President —
ADITYA RENGASWAMY Treasurer —
RYAN ESCO Board Member —
BETH BARCLAY Board Member —
JAMESON PASEK Board Member —
JOHN MORGAN Board Member —
KENNETH BUNTROCK Board Member —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KAREN THOMPSON Executive Director 16.8% of Rev
TURNER BLESDSOE Board Member —
BEGUM OKUTGEN Board Member —
LORETTA MCCABE Board Member —
STACIE MADDEN Board President —
CHRISTINE MCINTYRE Board Member —
CONNIE GORFINKLE Board Member —
MATTHEW NELSON Board Member —
KATHLEEN ALMAND Secretary —
PAUL PECCI Board President —
ADITA RENGASWAMY Treasurer —
RYAN ESCO Board Member —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KAREN THOMPSON Executive Director 10.9% of Rev
TURNER BLESDSOE Board Member —
NANCY CUSACK Board Member —
LORETTA MCCABE Board Member —
STACIE MADDEN Board President —
CHRISTINE MCINTYRE Board Member —
CONNIE GORFINKLE Board Member —
HELEN TANG Treasurer —
MATTHEW NELSON Board Member —
KATHLEEN ALMAND Secretary —
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
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
35 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 376 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 40 points below the peer median (15 vs. 55).

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).
  2. Stabilize program expenses or grow earned-income revenue to break the consecutive-deficit pattern (~8 points to financial score).

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