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
31
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
10
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Structural Deficit

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2016 23.4% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 20.5% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2014 30 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2012 50.8% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2011 27.2% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2010 21.5% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2009 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

No IRS 990 Part VII compensation data available for this organization.

Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
10 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
31 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 124 other orgs in GA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 27 points below the peer median (10 vs. 37).

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 23 → 31 over 5 years (improving by 8 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.