Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
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
48
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
75
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 Hidden Hidden 38.2% 48 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2022 51 Fragile Recovery
2021 40.8% 44 Fragile Gov Risk

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Douglas Machiz Treasurer 23.7% of Rev
Otis Harriel Secretary 23.7% of Rev
Bruce Belton Board Member
Meerenai Shim Board Member
Davide Verotta Board Member

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Douglas Machiz Treasurer 19.5% of Rev
Otis Harriel Secretary 18.7% of Rev
Bruce Belton Board Member
Meerenai Shim Board Member
Davide Verotta Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Douglas Machiz Treasurer 20.8% of Rev
Otis Harriel Secretary 20.4% of Rev
Bruce Belton Board Member
Monica Chew Board Member
Meerenai Shim Board Member
Shawne Workman Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
75 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
48 / 100
Developing

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 42 points above the peer median (75 vs. 33).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Reduce top-officer compensation from 38.2% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~32 points.
  2. 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.