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
31
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
45
Score

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 25.1% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2023 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2022 38 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2021 40 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 46 Financially Distressed Recovery
2019 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 51 Fragile Recovery
2015 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2013 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
TANYA BROWNLEE Board Member 25.2% of Rev
ELYSE SOKOLOFF Executive Director
MIKE DONAHOE Board President
BETH TAYLOR Treasurer

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DONNA SKOOG Executive Director
TIM CAMPBELL Board President
BRUCE LAMBRECHT Treasurer
DONNA SKOOG Executive Director
TIM CAMPBELL Board President
BRUCE LAMBRECHT Treasurer
ELYSE SOKOLOFF Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DONNA SKOOG Board President
TIM CAMPBELL Board President
BRUCE LAMBRECHT Treasurer
DOUG BESCHTA Board Member
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
31 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 235 other orgs in WA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 16 points below the peer median (25 vs. 41).

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. Build cash reserves to at least 3 months of operating expenses — moves financial resilience score meaningfully (~10 points).

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