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
29
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
45
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
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2022 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 51 Fragile Recovery
2019 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 51 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 55 Fragile Recovery
2014 47 Fragile Recovery
2013 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2012 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 49 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Kody Rash Artistic Director
Jonathan Rash Operations
Jennifer Bohman Board Member
Board Member
Afton Whitney Production Manager
Kim Rash Board Member
Mary Savage Board Memeber
Melissa Hamilton Board Member
Amy Atkinson Board Member
Holly Gunther Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Kody Rash Artistic Director
Jonathan Rash Operations
Jodi Costa Finances
Daniel Rash Board Member
Afton Whitney Productions Manager
Kim Rash Board Member
Holly Gunther Board Member
Mary Savage Board Member
Melissa Hamilton Board Member
Amy Atkinson 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
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
29 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 81 other orgs in UT 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. 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.