Insufficient Data
What does this mean?
Not enough historical data to determine a longitudinal pattern.
Title
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
Historical Performance
| Year | Revenue | Top Comp | Comp % Rev | Score | Phase Label | Outlook | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | — | — | 19.9% | 33 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2016 | — | — | 3.2% | 55 | Fragile | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
No IRS 990 Part VII compensation data available for this organization.
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 830 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: Insufficient Data
Not enough historical data to determine a longitudinal pattern.
Overall score has gone from 55 → 33 over 2 years (declining by 22 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.
What's driving this score
- Comp-to-revenue ratio of 19.9% sits within the sector's healthy band (18–22%).
- Financial resilience score in the bottom quartile — reserves and liabilities ratios warrant review.
What would change this score
The two changes that would most improve this score:
- Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
- 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.