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
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Steady State ↓
Overall
32
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
45
Score
Title
-
Institutions
-
Avg Revenue
-
Risk Profile
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
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 | 31.9% | 32 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2023 | — | — | 29.9% | 32 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2022 | — | — | 54.2% | 19 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2021 | — | — | 35.8% | 31 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2020 | — | — | 68.2% | 27 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2019 | — | — | 35.3% | 27 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2018 | — | — | — | 31 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2017 | — | — | — | 45 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2016 | — | — | 42.1% | 34 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2015 | — | — | — | 49 | Fragile | Decline Risk | |
| 2014 | — | — | 6.8% | 54 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2013 | — | — | — | 37 | Financially Distressed | Decline Risk | |
| 2012 | — | — | — | 41 | Fragile | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2025
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Fisher | Executive Dir. | 18.6% of Rev | ||
| Crystal Liu | Treasurer | 12.1% of Rev | ||
| Rudy Guerrero | Board Member | 0.8% of Rev | ||
| Hector Zavala | Board Member | 0.4% of Rev | ||
| Joe Tally | Board President | — | ||
| Kim Larsen | Board President | — | ||
| Jeremy Laurin | Treasurer | — | ||
| Craig Souza | Secretary | — | ||
| Suzy Jane Edwards | Board Member | — | ||
| Catherine Brannigan | Board Member | — | ||
| Ely Orquiza | Board Member | — | ||
| Lawrence Dillon | Board Member | — | ||
| John Kennedy | Board Member | — | ||
| Tanika S Baptiste | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Fisher | Executive Dir. | 15.9% of Rev | ||
| John Fisher | Executive Dir. | 14.9% of Rev | ||
| Joseph Tally | Board Member | 7.1% of Rev | ||
| Crystal Liu | Treasurer | 3.1% of Rev | ||
| Rudy Guerrero | Board Member | 1.1% of Rev | ||
| Joe Tally | Board President | — | ||
| Kim Larsen | Board President | — | ||
| Jeremy Laurin | Treasurer | — | ||
| Craig Souza | Secretary | — | ||
| Suzy Jane Edwards | Board Member | — | ||
| Catherine Brannigan | Board Member | — | ||
| Ely Orquiza | Board Member | — | ||
| Lawrence Dillon | Board Member | — | ||
| John Kennedy | Board Member | — | ||
| Kim Larsen | Board President | — | ||
| Jeremy Laurin | Treasurer | — | ||
| Craig Souza | Secretary | — | ||
| Stan Stone | Board Member | — | ||
| Catherine Brannigan | Board Member | — | ||
| Ely Orquiza | Board Member | — | ||
| Lawrence Dillon | Board Member | — | ||
| Joshua Dunsby | Board President | — |
Tax year 2021
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Fisher | Executive Dir. | 16.6% of Rev | ||
| Joseph Tally | Board Member | 7.1% of Rev | ||
| Kim Larsen | Board President | — | ||
| Jeremy Laurin | Treasurer | — | ||
| Craig Souza | Secretary | — | ||
| Stan Stone | Board Member | — | ||
| Catherine Brannigan | Board Member | — | ||
| Ely Orquiza | Board Member | — | ||
| Lawrence Dillon | Board Member | — | ||
| Joshua Dunsby | Board President | — |
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
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
32 / 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 14 points above the peer median (45 vs. 31).
5-year trend: Steady State
No extreme longitudinal divergence detected. The organization is maintaining its current operational philosophy.
What's driving this score
- Comp-to-revenue ratio of 31.9% is above the 90th percentile for orgs of this size (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:
- Reduce top-officer compensation from 31.9% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~20 points.
- 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.