Insufficient Data
At least 3 years of filing history are required to project a trajectory.
Insufficient Data
Market
Archetype
Mechanical
Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint
Insufficient Data
What does this mean?
Not enough historical data to determine a longitudinal pattern.
Institutional Health Scores
Overall
27
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
20
Score
Program
5
Score
Title
-
Institutions
-
Avg Revenue
-
Risk Profile
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
2018
2019
2020
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Insufficient Data
Historical Performance
| Year | Revenue | Top Comp | Comp % Rev | Score | Phase Label | Outlook | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Hidden | Hidden | — | — | Unknown | — | |
| 2024 | Hidden | Hidden | — | — | Unknown | — | |
| 2019 | — | — | — | 27 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2026
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nilo Bartolome | FounderHead Coach | 168.5% of Rev | ||
| Willis Gardner | Head Coach | 119.3% of Rev | ||
| Evelyn Bartolome | Admininstrative Officer | — | ||
| Lynnette Babbar | Admininstrative Officer | — | ||
| Madelyn Bartolome | Admininstrative Officer | — |
Tax year 2025
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nilo Bartolome | Founder Head Coach | 168.5% of Rev | ||
| Willis Gardner | Head Coach | 128.5% of Rev | ||
| Danilo Bartolome | Coach | 56.9% of Rev | ||
| Katelyn Bartolome | Coach | 56.9% of Rev | ||
| Evelyn Bartolome | Admininstrative Officer | — | ||
| Lynnette Babbar | Admininstrative Officer | — | ||
| Madelyn Bartolome | Admininstrative Officer | — |
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NILO BARTOLOME | FOUNDER | 63.2% of Rev | ||
| NILO BARTOLOME | FOUNDER | — |
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown
Score breakdown
Financial resilience
20 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
27 / 100
Priority Review
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 830 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: program score sits 26 points below the peer median (5 vs. 31).
5-year trend: Insufficient Data
Not enough historical data to determine a longitudinal pattern.
What's driving this score
- All-volunteer org with no paid officers — governance signal is neutral (default 50), not absent.
- 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:
- 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.