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
22
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
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
2024 68.8% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2023 24.7% 25 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 46.8% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2021 46.6% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2020 38.0% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2019 35.0% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2018 35.7% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2016 27.2% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 27.9% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2014 28.9% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 47 Financially Distressed Recovery
2012 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2011 45 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Kristina Nakagawa Executive Director
Maria Oberg Board President
Lou De La Rosa Board President
Brian Kroneman Treasurer
Munni Krishna Secretary
Jackson Baker Board Member
Emma Eaton Board Member
Elie Haddad Board Member
Babette McKay Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Joshua Lanam Executive Director 30.5% of Rev
Kristina Nakagawa Artistic Director 27.2% of Rev
Joshua Lanam Executive Dir. 25.2% of Rev
Kristina Nakagawa Board Member 25.2% of Rev
Joshua Lanam Executive Dir. 25.2% of Rev
Kristina Nakagawa Board Member 25.2% of Rev
Teresa Meyer Calvert Board President
Susan Peterson Board President
Alan Spool Board Member
Emma Eaton Secretary
Donald Foster Board Member
Ava Huang Board Member
Babette McKay Board Member
Sebu Koleth Board Member
Teresa Meyer Calvert Board President
Elie Haddad Board President
Brian Kroneman Treasurer
Babette McKay Secretary
Emma Eaton Board Member
Jackson Baker Board Member
Munni Krishna Board Member
Maria Oberg Board Member
Teresa Meyer Calvert Board President
Susan Peterson Board President
Alan Spool Board Member
Emma Eaton Secretary
Donald Foster Board Member
Ava Huang Board Member
Babette McKay Board Member
Sebu Koleth Board Member
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
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
22 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 829 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 33 points below the peer median (0 vs. 33).

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. Reduce top-officer compensation from 68.8% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~40 points.
  2. 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.