Structural Deficit
Structural Deficit
Structural Deficit Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
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
45
Score
Governance
58
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
60
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 — — 2.9% 45 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 — — 2.6% 45 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — 1.8% 39 Financially Distressed Recovery
2020 — — 4.0% 35 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2019 — — 3.3% 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2018 — — 3.7% 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2017 — — 3.7% 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2016 — — 3.6% 35 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2015 — — 4.6% 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2014 — — 3.7% 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2013 — — 5.2% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 — — 5.0% 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2011 — — 6.5% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LINDA C SMITH Board Member 1.6% of Rev
PAUL CHUNG Board Member —
JOHN G FRANCIS Board Member —
SWECHHA GHIMIRE Board Member —
MICHAEL HAMBLIN Board Member —
JONATHAN HICKERSON Treasurer —
JATHAN JANOVE Board Member —
JEN JENKINS Board President —
JOANNA JOHNSTON Board Member —
LINDSAY MATTES Board President —
HADLEY RAMPTON Board Member —
KAREN THOMPSON Board Member —
JONATHAN VAAS Secretary —
LYNNE WIMMER Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LINDA C SMITH Board Member 1.6% of Rev
PAUL CHUNG Board Member —
JOHN G FRANCIS Board Member —
MICHAEL HAMBLIN Board Member —
JONATHAN HICKERSON Board Member —
JAELYNN JENKINS Board President —
JENN JENKINS Board Member —
JOANNA JOHNSTON Treasurer —
LINDSAY MATTES Board Member —
HADLEY RAMPTON Board Member —
KAREN THOMPSON Board President —
JONATHAN VAAS Secretary —
LYNNE WIMMER Board Member —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LINDA C SMITH Board Member 2.9% of Rev
PAUL CHUNG Board Member —
DAVID FRANCIS Board Member —
MICHAEL HAMBLIN Board Member —
JONATHAN HICKERSON Board Member —
JAELYNN JENKINS Board President —
JENN JENKINS Board Member —
JOANNA JOHNSTON Treasurer —
LINDSAY MATTES Board Member —
HADLEY RAMPTON Board Member —
KAREN THOMPSON Board President —
DAVID TUNDERMAN Board Member —
JONATHAN VAAS Secretary —
LYNNE WIMMER Board Member —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LINDA C SMITH Board Member 2.8% of Rev
KATRINA BAIRD Board Member —
RUSTY BOLLOW Board President —
PAUL CHUNG Board Member —
MICHAEL HAMBLIN Board Member —
JONATHAN HICKERSON Board Member —
JAELYNN JENKINS Board President —
JOANNA JOHNSTON Treasurer —
SKYE LAZARO Board Member —
KANITA LIPJANKIC Board President —
LINDSAY MATTES Board Member —
GAZAL PALMER Board Member —
GRACE PUSAVAT Board Member —
HADLEY RAMPTON Board Member —
KAREN THOMPSON Board President —
DAVID TUNDERMANN Board President —
JONATHAN VAAS Secretary —
LYNNE WIMMER Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
25 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
58 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
45 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 114 other orgs in UT with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 31 points above the peer median (60 vs. 29).

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.