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
35
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
20
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 20.0% 35 Fragile Recovery
2022 20.5% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 18.7% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 14.9% 37 Fragile Recovery
2019 20.3% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PAUL GOLDSTEIN Executive Director 18.0% of Rev
ERIC ZIMMERMAN Secretary
ADAM BERMAN Treasurer

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PAUL GOLDSTEIN Executive Director 12.4% of Rev
ERIC ZIMMERMAN Secretary
ADAM BERMAN Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
20 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
35 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 5 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A3.

Most-divergent component: governance score sits 8 points below the peer median (45 vs. 53).

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 33 → 35 over 5 years (improving by 2 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.