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
29
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
45
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
2023 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 19 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 28 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2019 35 Financially Distressed Recovery
2018 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2011 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ADMINISTRATOR 107.7% of Rev
Board Member 49.7% of Rev
Board Member 23.7% of Rev
Secretary 12.4% of Rev
Board President
Board President
Treasurer
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Marie Forszt Administrator 79.5% of Rev
Frankie L Fesko Board Member 48.7% of Rev
Joe P Williamson Board Member 26.5% of Rev
Edward L Williams PhD Secretary 15.3% of Rev
Susan Arnold Board Member
Patricia Binkley Board Member
Ann Bochnowski Board Member
Elaine Carey PhD Board Member
Katrina Fesko Board Member
Amy Han PhD Board President
Don Harle Board Member
Dan Klein Board President
Terry McMahon Treasurer
Michael Palmer Board Member
Barbara Pressler Board Member
Diana Rogers Board Member
David Shafer Board Member
Ginger Watts Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MARIE FORSZT ADMINISTRATOR 83.8% of Rev
Frankie Fesko Board Member 48.6% of Rev
Joe Williamson Board Member 23.8% of Rev
Edward Williams PHD Secretary 16.2% of Rev
Terry McMahon Treasurer
Susan Arnold Board Member
Patrica Binkley Board Member
Ann Bochnowski Board Member
Elaine Carey Board Member
Katrina Fesko Board Member
Don Harle Board Member
Michael Luongo MD Board Member
Michael Palmer Board Member
Barbara Pressler Board Member
Diana Rogers Board Member
David Shafer Board Member
Ginger Watts Board Member
Amy Han Board President
Daniel Klein Board President
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
0 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
29 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 120 other orgs in IN with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 40 points below the peer median (0 vs. 40).

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 35 → 29 over 5 years (declining by 6 points).

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.