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
2023 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 28 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2016 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 49 Fragile Recovery
2012 47 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Joleen Koenigs Board President
Nancy Kowalski Board President
Shannon Zachman Board Member
Richard Koenigs Board Member
Ricki Pribyl Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Joleen Koenigs Board President
Nancy Kowalski Board President
Shannon Zachman Board Member
Richard Koenigs Board Member
Ricki Pribyl 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
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 175 other orgs in MN with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 22 points below the peer median (15 vs. 37).

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 25 → 35 over 5 years (improving by 10 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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.