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
27
Score
Governance
45
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
2023 Hidden Hidden 24.9% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 31.7% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 37.2% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 37.0% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2019 23.1% 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2018 27.3% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 28.6% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 28.1% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 26.4% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 24.6% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 28.5% 24 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2012 31.3% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2011 24.6% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Troy Carter Executive Director 22.3% of Rev
Caroline Falt Board Member 15.7% of Rev
Jason Ponnequin Print Shop Manager 4.3% of Rev
Steve Withycombe Board President
Alexia Lair Secretary
Sara Biancofiori Board Member
Heidi Leavitt Board Member
Michael Wheeler Board Member
Tracie Draper Treasurer
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
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
27 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 25 other orgs in WA with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 39 points below the peer median (0 vs. 39).

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 37 → 27 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

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
  2. 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.