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
41
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
40
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 18.0% 41 Fragile Gov Risk
2022 24.3% 38 Fragile Gov Risk
2021 7.4% 50 Fragile Recovery
2020 16.1% 45 Fragile Recovery
2019 18.5% 41 Fragile Gov Risk
2018 12.9% 52 Fragile Recovery
2017 15.8% 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 10.7% 49 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 7.3% 50 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 8.4% 54 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 8.4% 50 Fragile Recovery
2012 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2011 13.4% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
TAYLOR BURCIAGA Executive Director 8.8% of Rev
IVONNE MENDOZA Board Member
ADAM HERNANDEZ Board Member
RAMON PEREZ Board Member
DEVON OVERTON Board Member
MARIA GONZALEZ Board President
DAVID MARRUFO Board President
CRYSTAL GLAMBIN Secretary
MARK SHOLL Treasurer

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
TAYLOR BURCIAGA Executive Director 16.9% of Rev
IVONNE MENDOZA Board Member
ADAM HERNANDEZ Board Member
DEVON OVERTON Board Member
MARIA RODRIGUEZ-WINTER Board Member
RAMON PEREZ Board Member
MARIA GONZALEZ Board President
DAVID MARRUFO Board President
CRYSTAL GLAMBIN Secretary
MARK SHOLL Treasurer
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
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
41 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 49 other orgs in OH with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 11 points above the peer median (45 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 41 → 41 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. 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.