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
38
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
15
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
2023 38 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2022 42 Fragile Stable Watch
2021 45 Fragile Recovery
2020 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2019 42 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 42 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 39 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 39 Fragile Recovery
2015 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 39 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Jennifer Raum Board President
Marc Knutson Treasurer
Amanda Tork Board President
Katie Dukart Board President
Dave Rygh Board President

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Jennifer Raum Board President
Katie Ralston Board President
Carla Smith Secretary
Kristina Childress Treasurer
Desiree Zielke Board President
Katie Dukart Board President
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
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
38 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 20 other orgs in ND with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 26 points above the peer median (60 vs. 34).

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 42 → 38 over 5 years (declining by 4 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.