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
33
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
20
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2022 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2020 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Samantha Chancellor Board President
Jenn Ford Secretary
Cory Lund Treasurer

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Linda Lee Board President
Katie Erby Board President
Jenn Ford Secretary
Cory Lund Treasurer

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Emily Bajwa Board President
Katie Erby Board President
Linda Lee Secretary
Cory Lund Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
20 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
33 / 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: financial score sits 13 points below the peer median (20 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. Build cash reserves to at least 3 months of operating expenses — moves financial resilience score meaningfully (~10 points).
  2. Stabilize program expenses or grow earned-income revenue to break the consecutive-deficit pattern (~8 points to financial score).

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.