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
35
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Steady State

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2024 35 Fragile Recovery
2023 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 40 Financially Distressed Recovery
2021 45 Fragile Recovery
2020 44 Fragile Recovery
2019 35 Fragile Recovery
2018 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 35 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2014 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2011 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
STEVE NAIMAN Board Member
AMBER LAGUE Board Member
JULIE GONZALES Board Member
DAVID DEUEL Board President
MARY COX Board President
LAREE HARTMAN Treasurer
DONYA DEUEL Secretary

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
STEVE NAIMAN Board Member
TINA DAHL Board President
MARY COX Board President
MELANIE PERRIN Treasurer
CANDI ROETHLER Secretary
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
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
35 / 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: financial score sits 8 points below the peer median (25 vs. 33).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 44 → 35 over 5 years (declining by 9 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.