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
34
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
45
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 Hidden Hidden 30.2% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 35.5% 42 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2020 42 Fragile Recovery
2019 25.8% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2018 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 18.2% 37 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 19.6% 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 23.9% 43 Fragile Recovery
2014 39 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2013 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 51 Fragile Recovery
2011 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Heidi Dressler Executive Dir. 32.1% of Rev
Jan Booth Treasurer
David Grube Board Member
Aly Lynch Board Member
Nancy Roberts-Brown Secretary
Betty Szatkowski Board Member
Karen Hendrickson Board Member
Lana Noel Chairman

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Lana Noel Chairman
Jan Booth Treasurer
David Grube Board Member
Donna Inglis Board Member
Nancy Roberts-Brown Board Member
Heidi Dressler Executive Dir.
Lana Noel Chairman
Jan Booth Treasurer
David Grube Board Member
Donna Inglis Board Member
Nancy Roberts-Brown Board Member
Heidi Dressler Executive Dir.
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
34 / 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.

Overall score has gone from 31 → 34 over 5 years (improving by 3 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Reduce top-officer compensation from 30.2% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~16 points.
  2. 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.