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
25
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 Hidden Hidden 22.1% 25 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 32.5% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 20.2% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 26.2% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2019 20.5% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 17.4% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 18.2% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2016 18.6% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 43 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2013 49 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
RIVKA GOLDBERG Executive Director 23.8% of Rev
DANIELLE STORCH Board President
NANCY PRETTER Secretary
DEVORAH ADLER Board Member
BARBARA IFRAH Board Member
FAIGY LOEB Board Member
LIZZIE BANKER Board Member
GIL HOROWITZ Board Member
SIMA HOLLAND Board Member
MAGGIE SILVER Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
RIVKA A GOLDBERG Board Member 15.3% of Rev
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
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
25 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 75 other orgs in MD with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 33 points below the peer median (0 vs. 33).

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 29 → 25 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. 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.