Structural Deficit
Structural Deficit
Structural Deficit Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint

Structural Deficit

"Preserves and promotes Appalachian cultural arts and the historic Stecoah community school building, offering diverse programs to save fading mountain culture and enrich lives through economic incentives and community engagement."

— Statement of Program Service Accomplishments

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

Demonstrated Impact

  • Approx 2300 audience for 'Appalachian Evening'
  • Over 180 artists supported by gallery
  • 4900 audience members for gallery/drive about
  • Approx 3000 attendees at Annual Harvest Festival
  • Approx 50 participants through 10 classes
  • Over 15,000 people visit buildings and grounds annually
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Structural Deficit ↓
Overall
33
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
10
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 —
2023 Hidden Hidden 12.6% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 — — 10.3% 37 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — 21.5% 39 Fragile Recovery
2020 — — 8.3% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 — — 9.9% 36 Financially Distressed Recovery
2018 — — 16.4% 37 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — 15.3% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2016 — — 15.7% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 — — 13.9% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 — — 13.6% 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2013 — — 16.9% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 — — 12.6% 45 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 — — 14.4% 45 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER WEST EXECUTIVE DI 12.8% of Rev
MARCIA DAVIES Board Member —
RICK DAVIS Board President —
SARA DAVIS Board President —
ROANNE GORDON Board Member —
MARCIA HOLLIFIELD Board Member —
MITCH HYDE Board Member —
KARLA JONES Board Member —
KAREN MICKLER VICE PRESIDE —
JULIE NELMS Board Member —
CHRISTY NORCROSS Secretary —
BILL PRATHER Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER WEST EXECUTIVE DI 10.2% of Rev
KAREN MICKLER VICE PRESIDE —
JULIE NELMS Board Member —
CHRISTY NORCROSS Secretary —
BILL PRATHER Board Member —
ROGER SMOKER Board Member —
DAVID SUMNER Board Member —
MARCIA DAVIES Board Member —
RICK DAVIS Board President —
SARA DAVIS Board President —
ANNE ECK Board Member —
BETH FIELDS Board Member —
ROANNE GORDON Board Member —
MARCIA HOLLIFIELD Board Member —
MITCH HYDE Board Member —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER WEST EXECUTIVE DI 5.9% of Rev
MARCIA DAVIES Board Member —
RICK DAVIS Board President —
SARA DAVIS Board President —
ANNE ECK Board Member —
BETH FIELDS Board Member —
ROANNE GORDON Board Member —
MARCIA HOLLIFIELD Board Member —
KAREN MICKLER VICE PRESIDE —
JULIE NELMS Board Member —
CHRISTY NORCROSS Treasurer —
BILL PRATHER Board Member —
ROGER SMOKER Board Member —
DAVID SUMNER Board Member —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
BETH FIELDS EXECUTIVE DI 9.0% of Rev
BETTY CLAXTON Board Member —
MARCIA DAVIES Board Member —
RICK DAVIS Board President —
SARA DAVIS Board President —
MARCIA HOLLIFIELD Board Member —
BILL PRATHER Board Member —
ROGER SMOKER Board Member —
KAREN MICKLER VICE PRESIDE —
CHRISTY NORCROSS Treasurer —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
10 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
33 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 144 other orgs in NC with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 57 points below the peer median (10 vs. 67).

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. 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.