Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Stable
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
51
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
30
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 Hidden Hidden 51 Fragile Decline Risk
2022 64 Stable Decline Risk
2021 68 Stable Stable Watch
2020 58 Fragile Recovery
2019 55 Fragile Recovery
2018 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 51 Fragile Recovery
2013 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2012 47 Fragile Recovery
2011 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
INGRID BURGER Board President
CAROL OSBORNE Secretary
EDITH VAN HUSS Treasurer
RONALD GOLDMAN Board Member
GEORGE VALLEY Board Member
LEO MARCUS Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
INGRID BURGER Board President
CAROL OSBORNE Secretary
EDITH VAN HUSS Treasurer
RONALD GOLDMAN Board Member
GEORGE VALLEY Board Member
LEO MARCUS Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LEO MARCUS Board President
RONALD GOLDMAN Board Member
ADAM BIRNBAUM Secretary
EDITH VAN HUSS Treasurer
GEORGE VALLEY Board Member
INGRID BURGER Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
65 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
51 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 830 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 32 points above the peer median (65 vs. 33).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 55 → 51 over 5 years (declining by 4 points).

What's driving this score

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.