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
32
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
30
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Steady State

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2022 12.1% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 43 Financially Distressed Recovery
2020 46 Fragile Recovery
2019 2.8% 46 Financially Distressed Recovery
2018 39 Fragile Recovery
2017 37 Fragile Recovery
2016 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2012 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CHARLES SLENDER-WHITE Board Member 9.6% of Rev
KEANU BRADY Board Member 2.5% of Rev
JOHN ENGSTROM Treasurer
JEANNE PFEFFER Board President
MARYAM ROSTAMI Secretary

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CHARLES SLENDER-WHITE Board Member 2.1% of Rev
JOHN ENGSTROM Treasurer
JEANNE PFEFFER Board President
MARYAM ROSTAMI Board Member
CHARLES SLENDER-WHITE Board Member
JOHN ENGSTROM Treasurer
JEANNE PFEFFER Board President
MARYAM ROSTAMI Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
30 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 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: financial score sits 3 points below the peer median (30 vs. 33).

5-year trend: Steady State

No extreme longitudinal divergence detected. The organization is maintaining its current operational philosophy.

Overall score has gone from 39 → 32 over 5 years (declining by 7 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. 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.