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.
Title
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
Historical Performance
| Year | Revenue | Top Comp | Comp % Rev | Score | Phase Label | Outlook | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | — | — | 46.2% | 32 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2015 | — | — | 39.5% | 40 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2014 | — | — | 49.0% | 32 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch | |
| 2013 | — | — | 62.9% | 32 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2012 | — | — | — | 42 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2011 | — | — | — | 38 | Financially Distressed | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
No IRS 990 Part VII compensation data available for this organization.
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 830 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: program score sits 29 points above the peer median (60 vs. 31).
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 42 → 32 over 5 years (declining by 10 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.
What's driving this score
- Comp-to-revenue ratio of 46.2% is well above the sector's 90th percentile (healthy band: 18–22%).
- Financial resilience score in the bottom quartile — reserves and liabilities ratios warrant review.
What would change this score
The two changes that would most improve this score:
- Reduce top-officer compensation from 46.2% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~40 points.
- Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.