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
32
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
45
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 33.8% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2023 23.4% 37 Fragile Recovery
2022 27.1% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 51 Fragile Recovery
2020 41.4% 44 Fragile Gov Risk
2019 55 Fragile Recovery
2018 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 43 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 43 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 43 Fragile Recovery
2014 37 Fragile Recovery
2013 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 45 Fragile Recovery
2011 41 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MEGHAN OKEEFE Executive Director 26.7% of Rev
NICOLE COFFENBERRY Board Member
CONNIE MCKENNEY Board Member
KATHERINE JACOBS Board Member
JOSCELYN COURTNEY Board Member
ALYSSA VARGAS Board President
ANDREA MOLIN Treasurer
BRIGID POWERS Secretary

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MEGHAN OKEEFE Executive Director 19.5% of Rev
ALYSSA VARGAS Board Member 4.9% of Rev
ANNETTE FOX Board President
RICH HOFFMAN Board Member
CECILY SWASON Board Member
BETZAIDA ARROYO Secretary
KC BROWN Board Member
BRAD HOSHAW Board Member
JOAQUIN FIORESI Board Member
TONI LINDE Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
15 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
32 / 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 18 points below the peer median (15 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 → 32 over 5 years (declining by 12 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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 33.8% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~24 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.