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
25
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
5
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 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2022 28 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2021 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2016 23 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2011 21 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ARIEL FERNALD Board President
DON BAILEY Board President
TONI PURRY Treasurer
TINA MOSS Board Member
CAIA COLEY FEIFER Board Member
ARIEL FERNALD Board President
DON BAILEY Board President
PAUL FERNALD Secretary
TONI PURRY Treasurer
TINA MOSS Board Member
CAIA COLEY FEIFER Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
15 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
25 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 829 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 27 points below the peer median (5 vs. 32).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 25 → 25 over 5 years (stable by 0 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. 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.