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
42
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
60
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 — — 17.9% 42 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2022 — — — 47 Financially Distressed Recovery
2021 — — — 52 Fragile Recovery
2020 — — — 48 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — — 39 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 — — — 51 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MARCELO PEREIRA Board Member —
RODNEY JACKSON JR Board Member —
MARTINA ROGERS Board Member —
MECCA BILLINGS Board Member —
NICOLA BOSCO-ALVAREZ Board Member —
ELIZABETH ROBERTS Board Member —
JOANNE COHEN Board Member —
KATE STOIA Treasurer —
BRIAN BELL Board Member —
LILLIAN KIM MURPHY Board Member —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MARCELO JAVIER PEREIRA Board Member —
RODNEY EARL JACKSON JR Board Member —
MARTINA ROGERS Board Member —
MECCA BILLINGS Board Member —
NICOLA BOSCO-ALVAREZ Board Member —
ELISABETH ROBERTS Board Member —
JOANNE COHEN Board Member —
KATE STOIA Board Member —
BRIAN BELL Board Member —
LILLIAN KIM MURPHY 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
42 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 1,424 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 29 points above the peer median (60 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 39 → 42 over 5 years (improving by 3 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.