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
41
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
5
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 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2023 42 Fragile Recovery
2022 40 Fragile Recovery
2021 41 Fragile Recovery
2020 40 Fragile Recovery
2019 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 42 Fragile Recovery
2017 37 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 37 Fragile Recovery
2015 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2011 37 Fragile Recovery
2010 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MARILYN TOGNINALI Board President
TIM COOK Board President
DIANNA BAKER Treasurer
MICHAEL BUSSEY SR Board Member
ARMIDA GILBERT Board Member
DEE SCHWERIN Board Member
MINNIE EICHELE Secretary

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MARILYN TOGNINALI Board President
TIM COOK Board President
STEFANIE POTEET Board Member
DIANNA BAKER Treasurer
MICHAEL BUSSEY SR Board Member
ARMIDA GILBERT Board Member
MELISSA MOORHOUSE Board Member
DEE SCHWERIN Board Member
MINNIE EICHELE Secretary
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
55 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
41 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 46 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A1.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 26 points below the peer median (5 vs. 31).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 40 → 41 over 5 years (improving by 1 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.