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
44
Score
Governance
55
Score
Financial
25
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 6.5% 44 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 3.2% 45 Fragile Stable Watch
2021 3.4% 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 5.6% 50 Fragile Recovery
2019 42 Fragile Recovery
2018 26 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ALEX EVANS Executive Director 2.1% of Rev
BENJAMIN DICKOW Board President
VIVIAN GUELER Treasurer
PETER SATTLER Secretary
JOY CHO Board Member
GARY BAKER Board Member
CHRISTINA WINKELMANN Board Member
ALICIA HOUTROUW Board Member
MARISSA SMITH Board Member
FRED BESHID Board Member
MARY FAGOT Board President

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ALEX EVANS Executive Dir. 1.8% of Rev
BENJAMIN DICKOW Board President
MARY FAGOT Board President
PETER SATTLER Secretary
VIVIAN GUELER Treasurer
JOY CHO Board Member
GARY BAKER Board Member
CHRISTINA WINKELMANN Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Winona Bechtle Board Member 0.8% of Rev
Alex Evans Executive Director 0.7% of Rev
Melissa Steele Board Member 0.7% of Rev
Kevin Beltz Board Member 0.7% of Rev
Molly L Cox Board Member 0.2% of Rev
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
25 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
55 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
44 / 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 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 42 → 44 over 5 years (improving by 2 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.