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
38
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2025 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 — — 29.4% 38 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2022 — — — 37 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — 34.8% 40 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
YVONNE MONTOYA Board Member 42.9% of Rev
MICHELLE ORDUNA Board President —
HOPE EBERHARDT Treasurer —
SALVADOR ANGULO Board Member —

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Yvonne Montoya Executive Director 29.4% of Rev
Michelle Orduna Board President —
Hope Eberhardt SecretaryTreasurer —
Salvador Angulo Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Yvonne Montoya Board Member 25.3% of Rev
Michele Orduna Board President —
Hope Eberhardt Treasurer —
Salvador Angulo Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
38 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 147 other orgs in AZ with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: governance score sits 15 points below the peer median (42 vs. 57).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

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 29.4% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~15 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.