Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint

Steady State

What does this mean?

No extreme longitudinal divergence detected. The organization is maintaining its current operational philosophy.

The Path Forward

The Stewardship

Focuses on long-term sustainability and gentle cultivation of existing resources rather than forced expansion. It honors the organization's established role as a reliable anchor.

The Stewardship
The Stewardship
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Steady State
Overall
20
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
5
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Steady State

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2023 Hidden Hidden 21.2% 20 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 16.6% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 Hidden Hidden 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2020 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 39 Financially Distressed Recovery
2017 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2016 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2015 35 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 41 Financially Distressed Recovery
2013 39 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2012 39 Financially Distressed Recovery
2011 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Ann Johnson Executive Dir. 21.2% of Rev
Cathleen Stewart Treasurer
John Stewart Secretary
Cailyn Murray Board President
Larry Johnson Board Member
Carolyn Tamler Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CATHLEEN STEWART Board President
NIKKI ENTERS Board President
GRETCHEN MILLS Treasurer
ERIKA HARRISON Secretary
BEVERLY ROSE Board Member
BROOK PARTIN Board Member
LARRY JOHNSON Board Member
RICK HOBBS Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
5 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
20 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 235 other orgs in WA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 36 points below the peer median (5 vs. 41).

5-year trend: Steady State

No extreme longitudinal divergence detected. The organization is maintaining its current operational philosophy.

Overall score has gone from 37 → 20 over 5 years (declining by 17 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.