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
21
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 46.2% 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 20.6% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2021 23.8% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Dr Daniel J Bissonnette Executive Dir. 23.1% of Rev
Julie Whitesel Treasurer
Aryanna Conyer Board President
Sarah Gray Secretary
Myra Griffin Board Member
Dr Frank Hewins Board President
Deborah Howell Board Member
Amy Hoyte Board Member
Dave Parkhurst Board Member
Kathryn Cecelia Whitacre Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Dr Daniel J Bissonnette Executive Dir. 23.1% of Rev
Paul Ban Board Member
Aryanna Conyer Secretary
Shelley Drury Treasurer
Sarah Gray Board Member
Myra Griffin Board Member
Dr Frank Hewins Board President
Deborah Howell Board Member
Amy Hoyte Board Member
Dale King Board Member
Keith Lemmon Board Member
Dave Parkhurst Board Member
Rick Talbert Board Member
Kathryn Cecelia Whitacre Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
0 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
21 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 236 other orgs in WA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 41 points below the peer median (0 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 27 → 21 over 3 years (declining by 6 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 46.2% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~40 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.