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
21
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 43.4% 21 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2022 47.7% 21 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2021 43.3% 21 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2020 23.1% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 21.6% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2016 45 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2015 43 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DEOKHWAN KIM Board Member 7.6% of Rev
CHANSOO LEE Board Member 5.0% of Rev
SUWAN CHOI Board Member 4.6% of Rev
HYUNCHAE KIM Board Member 4.6% of Rev
HOJIN CHOI Board Member 4.2% of Rev
YUN SIL JANG Board Member 3.4% of Rev
CHEONGRA HA Board Member 2.1% of Rev
JANE PARK Board President
YOUNG SEOK LEE Secretary
JAE HA Treasurer
ELIZABETH YI Board Member
JINHWA SUH Board Member
KI SEOK KIM Board Member
JI-YEON YUH Board Member
BYOUNG SUG KIM Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CHANSOO LEE Board Member 7.6% of Rev
WOOSUNG JUNG Board Member 7.6% of Rev
HOJIN CHOI Board Member 7.6% of Rev
SUWAN CHOI Board Member 6.2% of Rev
DEOKHWAN KIM Board Member 5.1% of Rev
YUN SIL JANG Board Member 4.4% of Rev
SUNGJAE LEE Board Member 0.8% of Rev
EUN KYUNG KO Treasurer
JOSHUA KIM Board Member
JINHWA SUH Board Member
JANE PARK Board Member
JAE HA Board Member
YOUNG SEOK LEE Board Member
NAOMI FRYDMAN Board Member
KRISTINA YI Board Member
BYOUNG SUG KIM Board President
JI-YEON YUH Secretary

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CHANSOO LEE Board Member 7.1% of Rev
WOOSUNG JUNG Board Member 7.1% of Rev
HOJIN CHOI Board Member 5.9% of Rev
SUWAN CHOI Board Member 5.0% of Rev
DEOKHWAN KIM Board Member 3.5% of Rev
BYOUNG SUG KIM Board President 2.9% of Rev
JI-YEON YUH Secretary
EUN KYUNG KO Treasurer
JOSHUA KIM Board Member
JINHWA SUH Board Member
YUN SIL JANG Board Member
JANE PARK Board Member
JAE HA Board Member
YOUNG SEOK LEE Board Member
NAOMI FRYDMAN Board Member
KRISTINA YI Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CHANSOO LEE Board Member 3.4% of Rev
WOOSUNG JUNG Board Member 3.0% of Rev
BYOUNG SUG KIM Board President 2.4% of Rev
HOJIN CHOI Board Member 1.3% of Rev
YUN SIL JANG Board Member 0.8% of Rev
JI-YEON YUH Secretary
EUNF KYUNG KO Treasurer
KYONG MEE CHOI Board Member
JINHWA SUH Board Member
SUWAN CHOI Board Member
KYUNG NAM KO Board Member
JANE PARK Board Member
YOUNG E KIM Board Member
YOUNG SEOK LEE 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
21 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 27 other orgs in IL with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 42 points below the peer median (0 vs. 42).

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 43.4% 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.