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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Hidden | Hidden | 59.0% | 24 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch | |
| 2022 | — | — | 10.6% | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2021 | — | — | 17.6% | 27 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2020 | — | — | 18.1% | 27 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2019 | — | — | 10.7% | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2018 | — | — | 10.5% | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2017 | — | — | 12.7% | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2016 | — | — | 13.4% | 33 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2015 | — | — | 16.0% | 31 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2014 | — | — | 21.0% | 27 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2013 | — | — | 21.3% | 27 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2012 | — | — | 23.0% | 27 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch | |
| 2011 | — | — | 23.9% | 27 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nancy Smith | Board President | 11.8% of Rev | ||
| Camilla Ann Mican | Board Member | — | ||
| Aubrey Watkins | Board Member | — | ||
| Sally Jesse | Board Member | — | ||
| Richard Kiene III | Board President | — | ||
| Shari Lightstone | SecretaryTreasurer | — | ||
| Maurice Portley | Board Member | — |
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 118 other orgs in AZ with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: financial score sits 31 points below the peer median (0 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 29 → 24 over 5 years (declining by 5 points).
What's driving this score
- Comp-to-revenue ratio of 59.0% 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 59.0% 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.