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
28
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
5
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
Steady State

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2023 28.8% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 68.0% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 8.6% 37 Fragile Recovery
2020 12.2% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 57.1% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2018 51.7% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2017 54.9% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2016 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 51 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 51 Fragile Recovery
2011 47 Fragile Recovery
2010 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
TERESA SANCHEZ Board President

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ALEJANDRA FLORES Board President 4.3% of Rev

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ALEJANDRA FLORES Board President 3.5% of Rev
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
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
28 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 171 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 29 points below the peer median (5 vs. 34).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 30 → 28 over 5 years (declining by 2 points).

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 28.8% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~14 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.