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
50
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
45
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 Hidden Hidden 11.6% 41 Fragile Gov Risk
2022 9.8% 43 Fragile Gov Risk
2021 8.8% 46 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 5.7% 50 Fragile Recovery
2019 43 Fragile Recovery
2013 23 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Ross Gasworth Board Member 8.1% of Rev
Irena Iryna Krechkovsky Executive Dir. 3.7% of Rev
Sukhee Kang Board Member
Kevin Loucks Strategic Con
Joanne Kang Board Member
Ron Harris Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Ross Gasworth Board Member 5.8% of Rev
Irena Iryna Krechkovsky Executive Dir. 2.1% of Rev
Sukhee Kang Board Member
Kevin Loucks Strategic Con
Joanne Kang Board Member
Ron Harris Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Ross Gasworth Board Member 3.5% of Rev
Irena Iryna Krechkovsky Executive Dir. 1.3% of Rev
Kevin Loucks Strategic Con
April Kim 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
50 / 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 829 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 14 points above the peer median (45 vs. 31).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 43 → 41 over 5 years (declining by 2 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.