Institutional Maturation
Institutional Maturation
Institutional Maturation Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
Trajectory Thumbprint

Institutional Maturation

What does this mean?

The gold standard. 10-year slow, steady, concurrent growth across Financial Health, Governance, and Program. Leadership is scaling their oversight and impact in lockstep.

The Path Forward

The Crown

A mandate to lead the sector. It encourages the organization to mentor emerging nonprofits and embark on generational capital projects, leveraging their profound stability.

The Crown
The Crown
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Institutional Maturation ↓
Overall
48
Score
Governance
55
Score
Financial
35
Score
Program
60
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Institutional Maturation

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2022 — — 7.4% 48 Financially Distressed Recovery
2021 — — 15.4% 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 — — 9.5% 50 Fragile Decline Risk
2019 — — 6.9% 54 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 — — 2.8% 55 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — 19.2% 47 Fragile Recovery
2016 — — 39.5% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 — — 42.3% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 — — 38.9% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 — — 43.3% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 — — — 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2011 — — — 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CONNIE O'HENLEY Executive Dir. 7.7% of Rev
NAN FOWLER Board President —
ASHLEA BOYER Board President —
DENNIS KEMBLE Board Member —
NATHAN ALVARADO Board Member —
RENA DAMBLY Board Member —
DAVID MAISLEN Treasurer —
JAMIE MARAVIGLIA-MANALO Secretary —
JENNIFER MARSH Board Member —
JOAN PRUETT Board Member —
AL STANFORD Board Member —
SANDY LUBIN Board President —
JUANITA MCMULLEN Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
35 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
55 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
48 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 1,424 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 29 points above the peer median (60 vs. 31).

5-year trend: Institutional Maturation

The gold standard. 10-year slow, steady, concurrent growth across Financial Health, Governance, and Program. Leadership is scaling their oversight and impact in lockstep.

Overall score has gone from 55 → 48 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.