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
25
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 3.9% 48 Fragile Recovery
2021 16.7% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 25 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 19 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
GERALD JED HILLY Executive Dir. 7.6% of Rev
KURT VITOLO Treasurer
JOHN D MAY Board President
LORI BADGET Secretary
GARTH FUNDIS Board Member
JONATHAN TAPLIN Board President
STEVE SMITH Board Member
RHIANNON GIDDENS Board Member
BRANDI CARLILE Board Member
T BONE BURNETTE Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JOHN D MAY Board President
LORI BADGET Secretary
MARK MOFFATT Board Member
GERALD JED HILLY Executive Dir.
KURT VITOLO Treasurer
DENNIS LORD Board President
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
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
25 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 45 other orgs in TN with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 38 points below the peer median (0 vs. 38).

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 25 → 25 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.