Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
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
47
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
60
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 17.6% 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2022 13.3% 48 Fragile Recovery
2021 17.7% 47 Fragile Recovery
2020 22.4% 43 Fragile Gov Risk
2019 48 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 48 Fragile Recovery
2017 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 42 Fragile Recovery
2013 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
VINCENT QUENNEVILLE Executive Director 13.2% of Rev
ADRIENNE STEWART Board President
BRAD WILLIAMSON Board Member
LYNN GIULIANI Board Member
HEIDI DOORNENBAL Board Member
CHUCK ROBINSON Board Member
JEFF MCCLURE Board Member
JENNY WEEKS Treasurer
TERRY REDDEN Board Member
LINDA ENFIELD Secretary
SUSAN LAINE Board Member
SUE SHARPE Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
VINCENT QUENNEVILLE Executive Director 13.7% of Rev
ADRIENNE STEWART Secretary
BRAD WILLIAMSON Board President
LYNN GIULIANI Board Member
HEIDI DOORNENBAL Board Member
CHUCK ROBINSON Board President
JEFF MCCLURE Board Member
JENNY WEEKS Treasurer
TERRY REDDEN 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
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
47 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 25 other orgs in WA with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 34 points above the peer median (60 vs. 26).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 48 → 47 over 5 years (declining by 1 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.