Insufficient Data
At least 3 years of filing history are required to project a trajectory.
Insufficient Data
Market
Archetype
Mechanical
Natural
Tier
Stable
Trajectory Thumbprint
Insufficient Data
What does this mean?
Not enough historical data to determine a longitudinal pattern.
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Insufficient Data ↓
Overall
57
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
90
Score
Program
15
Score
Title
-
Institutions
-
Avg Revenue
-
Risk Profile
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Insufficient Data
Historical Performance
| Year | Revenue | Top Comp | Comp % Rev | Score | Phase Label | Outlook | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Hidden | Hidden | — | — | Unknown | — | |
| 2024 | Hidden | Hidden | — | — | Unknown | — | |
| 2019 | — | — | — | 57 | Fragile | Decline Risk | |
| 2017 | — | — | — | 59 | Fragile | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2025
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARTHA RUSSELL | Treasurer | — | ||
| DEBBIE CARR | Board Member | — | ||
| KIM PEPMILLER | Board Member | — | ||
| CHUCK HALL | Board Member | — | ||
| JAY FEWLESS | Board Member | — | ||
| JOYCE MIDDLETON | Board Member | — | ||
| KAREN SCHMIDT | Board Member | — | ||
| AMY HALL | Board Member | — | ||
| BRIAN MCCARTY | Board Member | — | ||
| WINDY PARR | Board Member | — | ||
| JOHN NEILSON | Board Member | — | ||
| JOHN DERBONNE | Board Member | — | ||
| MARTHA RUSSELL | Treasurer | — | ||
| DEBBIE CARR | Board Member | — | ||
| KIM PEPMILLER | Board Member | — | ||
| CHUCK HALL | Board Member | — | ||
| JAY FEWLESS | Board Member | — | ||
| JOYCE MIDDLETON | Board Member | — | ||
| KAREN SCHMIDT | Board Member | — | ||
| AMY HALL | Board Member | — | ||
| BRIAN MCCARTY | Board Member | — | ||
| WINDY PARR | Board Member | — | ||
| JOHN NEILSON | Board Member | — | ||
| JOHN DERBONNE | Board Member | — |
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown
Score breakdown
Financial resilience
90 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
57 / 100
Stable
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 98 other orgs in LA with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: financial score sits 33 points above the peer median (90 vs. 57).
5-year trend: Insufficient Data
Not enough historical data to determine a longitudinal pattern.
What's driving this score
- All-volunteer org with no paid officers — governance signal is neutral (default 50), not absent.
What would change this score
No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.
Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.