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
41
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
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
2023 — — — 41 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — 49.1% 40 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2020 — — — 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2019 — — — 47 Fragile Recovery
2018 — — — 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 — — — 43 Fragile Recovery
2015 — — — 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 — — — 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 — — — 41 Fragile Recovery
2012 — — — 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2011 — — — 41 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Winda I Shimizu Executive Director 62.2% of Rev
Jeanne Bertolina HAC Board Webmaster —
Milt Bowerman Board Member —
Russell Foote Board Member —
Edward Keller Treasurer —
Lani Llamado Board Member —
Karla Lopez Board Member —
Al Murdach Board Member —
Patra Nesseth-Steffes Board Member —
Suzanne Phillis Secretary —
Heather Reyes Board President —
Bruce Roberts Board President —
Jayendra Singh Board Member —
Gerald Thompson Board Member —
Winnie Thompson Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
55 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
41 / 100
Priority Review

The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →

Peer comparison

Compared to 1,425 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 26 points below the peer median (5 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 37 → 41 over 5 years (improving by 4 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. 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.