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
37
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
30
Score
Program
30
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 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2022 30 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 37 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2017 37 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2016 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2015 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 61 Stable Stable Watch
2013 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Gencie T Mondrus Board President
Jay Michtom Chief Financial Officer
David Lapidus Secretary
Jill Michtom Board Member
Adrien Roberts Board Member
Shelby Huber Board Member
Gencie T Mondrus Board President
Jay Michtom Chief Financial Officer
David Lapidus Secretary
Jill Michtom Board Member
Renee Gordon Board Member
Adrien Roberts Board Member
Shelby Huber Board Member
Shira Renee Thomas Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
30 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
37 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 829 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 3 points below the peer median (30 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 33 → 37 over 5 years (improving by 4 points).

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.