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
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Steady State ↓
Overall
37
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
45
Score
Title
-
Institutions
-
Avg Revenue
-
Risk Profile
Representative Institutions
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Hidden | Hidden | — | — | Unknown | — | |
| 2023 | Hidden | Hidden | 17.8% | 37 | Financially Distressed | Recovery | |
| 2022 | — | — | 39.1% | 34 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2021 | — | — | 34.3% | 38 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2020 | — | — | 43.1% | 38 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2019 | — | — | 36.7% | 46 | Governance-Stressed | Recovery | |
| 2018 | — | — | — | 45 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2017 | — | — | 20.2% | 51 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2016 | — | — | 28.6% | 42 | Fragile | Gov Risk | |
| 2015 | — | — | — | 52 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2014 | — | — | 30.8% | 32 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2013 | — | — | 32.3% | 32 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2012 | — | — | 28.3% | 36 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2011 | — | — | 36.6% | 38 | Governance-Stressed | Gov Risk |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2025
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barbara Dodson | Board Member | — | ||
| Patty Usher | Board Member | — | ||
| Susan Lazear | Board Member | — | ||
| Christine Sharp | Board Member | — | ||
| Caroline Frederick | Board President | — | ||
| Ann Olsen | Board President | — | ||
| Sidney Windle | SecretaryTreasurer | — | ||
| Katrina Bruins | Executive Director | — |
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laura Mitchell | Executive Director | 26.7% of Rev | ||
| Linda Chase | Board President | — | ||
| Christine Sharp | Board Member | — | ||
| Ann Olsen | Board President | — | ||
| Sheila Best | Board Member | — | ||
| Sidney Windle | Secretary | — | ||
| Susan Lazear | Board Member | — | ||
| Barbara Dodson | Board Member | — | ||
| Tara Ritacco | Board Member | — | ||
| Carrie Frederick | Board President | — | ||
| Marty Ornish | Board President | — | ||
| Sheiler Best | Board Member | — | ||
| Judy Warren-Tippets | Treasurer | — | ||
| Debbie Murbach | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2022
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laura Mitchell | Executive Director | 31.7% of Rev | ||
| Carrie Frederick | Treasurer | — | ||
| Sue Robertson | Board President | — | ||
| Susan Lazear | Board Member | — | ||
| Karen Malin | Board President | — | ||
| Christine Sharp | Board Member | — | ||
| Lee Fowler Schwimmer | Board Member | — | ||
| Barbara Dodson | Board Member | — | ||
| Linda Chase | Board President | — | ||
| Marty Ornish | Board Member | — | ||
| Tara Ritacco | Secretary | — |
Tax year 2021
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laura Mitchell-Lorentan | Executive Director | 26.6% of Rev | ||
| Susan Lazear | Board Member | — | ||
| Karen Malin | Board Member | — | ||
| Christine Sharp | Board Member | — | ||
| Carol Sebastian-Neely | Board Member | — | ||
| Barbara Dodson | Board Member | — | ||
| Tara Ritacco | Board Member | — | ||
| Pam Palmer-Lowe | Board Member | — | ||
| Linda Chase | Board President | — | ||
| Chris Murphy | Secretary | — | ||
| Sheila Best | 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
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
37 / 100
Priority Review
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 12 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A4.
Most-divergent component: financial score sits 15 points below the peer median (25 vs. 40).
5-year trend: Steady State
No extreme longitudinal divergence detected. The organization is maintaining its current operational philosophy.
What's driving this score
- Comp-to-revenue ratio of 17.8% sits within the sector's healthy band (18–22%).
- Financial resilience score in the bottom quartile — reserves and liabilities ratios warrant review.
What would change this score
The two changes that would most improve this score:
- Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
- 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.