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
50
Score
Financial
10
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
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 28 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2023 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 46 Fragile Recovery
2021 39 Fragile Recovery
2020 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 39 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 35 Fragile Recovery
2016 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 35 Fragile Recovery
2014 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Seth Freisen Board President
Jill Brians Treasurer
Ky'an Kelly Secretary
Jason Jacobs Board President

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Seth Freisen Board President
Scott Rhymes Treasurer
Rachael Phillips Secretary

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SUSAN HAHN Board Member
DARELL LAVILLA VICE PRESIDE
CLAIRE MCCARTHY Secretary
MICK Board President
SCOTT RHYMES Treasurer
MAYA RICHARDSON Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
10 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 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 16 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix B1.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 18 points below the peer median (15 vs. 33).

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. 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.