Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
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
45
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
50
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 24.8% 45 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2022 35.3% 42 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2021 22.4% 44 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2020 33.1% 41 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2019 41.1% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2018 26.3% 42 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2017 13.8% 51 Fragile Recovery
2016 30.6% 46 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2015 12.2% 49 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 57 Fragile Recovery
2013 51 Fragile Recovery
2012 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 61 Stable Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Shaun Tai Executive Director 22.3% of Rev
Lisa Towles Board President
Brett Webb Board President
Martin Kojnok Secretary
Linda Poeng Treasurer
Michael Shih Treasurer
Brodie Rich Board Member
Kevin Louie Board Member
Kyle Rush Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Shaun Tai Executive Director 21.0% of Rev
Chelsea Seabron Board President
TiYanna Long Board President
Linda Poeng Treasurer
Lisa Towles Secretary
Kevin Louie Board Member
Brett Webb Board Member
Martin Kojnok Board Member
Michael Shih Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
50 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
45 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 4 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix B9.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 9 points above the peer median (50 vs. 41).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 33 → 45 over 5 years (improving by 12 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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 24.8% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~6 points.

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