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
27
Score
Governance
45
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
2025 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 Hidden Hidden 15.3% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2022 — — 15.9% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2021 — — 24.6% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2020 — — 18.8% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2019 — — 18.1% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 — — 18.1% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 — — 19.4% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 — — 19.0% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 — — 14.1% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2014 — — 17.1% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 — — 18.9% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 — — 19.5% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2011 — — 15.4% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PHYLLIS EVERETTE Board Member —
KATHERINE HILTON Board Member —
DANE KRICH Board Member —
JOAN LEANOS Treasurer —
DR DIANE LEBEDEFF Board Member —
LAURA REBETSKY QUINN Secretary —
LISA SHERWOOD Board President —
MARK WYNN Board Member —

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PHYLLIS EVERETTE Board Member —
KATHERINE HILTON Board Member —
DANE KRICH Board Member —
JOAN LEANOS Treasurer —
DR DIANE LEBEDEFF Board Member —
LAURA REBETSKY QUINN Secretary —
LISA SHERWOOD Board President —
MARK WYNN Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
J ERNEST GREEN Artistic Director 15.9% of Rev
PATRICIA BENDER Board Member —
DR PAT CLAGETT Board Member —
TIM DANGEL Board Member —
CINDY DETORIE Board Member —
PHYLLIS EVERETTE Board Member —
BRUCE HARGUS Board Member —
MARY HASELTON Board Member —
RICHARD HUGHEN Treasurer —
AL KIERSTEAD VICE PRESIDE —
JOYCE PRATT Board Member —
LAURA REBETSKY QUINN Board Member —
MARILYN RHODOVI Board Member —
LISA SHERWOOD Board President —
FREDERICK WEINGARTEN Board Member —
MARK WYNN Board Member —
CORBY ZEREN Secretary —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
J ERNEST GREEN Artistic Director 14.0% of Rev
PATRICIA BENDER Board Member —
DR PAT CLAGETT Board Member —
TIM DANGEL Board Member —
CINDY DETORIE Board Member —
PHYLLIS EVERETTE Board Member —
BRUCE HARGUS Board Member —
MARY HASELTON Board Member —
RICHARD HUGHEN Treasurer —
AL KIERSTEAD VICE PRESIDE —
JOYCE PRATT Board Member —
LAURA REBETSKY QUINN Board Member —
MARILYN RHODOVI Board Member —
LISA SHERWOOD Board President —
FREDERICK WEINGARTEN Board Member —
MARK WYNN Board Member —
CORBY ZEREN Secretary —
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
27 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 163 other orgs in MD with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 58 points below the peer median (0 vs. 58).

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. 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.