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
27
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 Hidden Hidden 26.9% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2022 — — — 39 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 — — — 54 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 — — — 52 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — — 54 Fragile Recovery
2018 — — — 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 — — — 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 — — — 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 — — — 51 Fragile Recovery
2014 — — — 43 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2013 — — — 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DEBRA NOMURA Executive Director 26.9% of Rev
LORRAINE MCINTIRE Treasurer —
ASA OLSSON Board President —
MICHAEL LAZARO Board President —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
GERI A CARTY Treasurer —
VIN BENNETT Secretary —
MICHAEL AVERY Board President —
KAREN GRAF Board President —
VIN BENNETT Secretary —
GERI A CARTY Treasurer —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KAREN GRAF Board President —
KAREN GRAF Secretary —
GERI A CARTY Treasurer —
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
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
27 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 1,424 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 28 points below the peer median (25 vs. 53).

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. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
  2. Reduce top-officer compensation from 26.9% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~10 points.

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