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
32
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
60
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 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2022 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2021 32 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2019 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 19 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 21 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ROBERT DORAN Board President
JAMES MALONE Secretary
MICHEAL RHEA Treasurer
LYNNE BOLTON Board President
CAROLYN DURAND BOARD OF DIR
LEIGHANNE CHAMPION BOARD OF DIR
CHRIS BIERLY BOARD OF DIR
MARK CUNHA BOARD OF DIR
VICTORIA HANSEN BOARD OF DIR
SHERI FEIGEN BOARD OF DIR
MARTIN TACKEL BOARD OF DIR
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
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
32 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 245 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 42 points below the peer median (0 vs. 42).

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 32 → 32 over 5 years (stable by 0 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.