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
19
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
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 80.0% 19 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2022 88.5% 19 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 89.5% 11 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 48.1% 14 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2019 26 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 13.5% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 8.7% 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JAMES J DOMINE Treasurer
ROBERTA HOFFMAN Secretary
MEHRAN KALAYDJIAN Board President
NORMA J DOMINE Treasurer
ROBERTA HOFFMAN Secretary
JAMES DOMINE MUSIC DIRECTORPRESIDENT
ROBERTA HOFFMAN Secretary
JAMES DOMINE MUSIC DIRECTORPRESIDENT

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ROBERTA HOFFMAN Secretary
NORMA J DOMINE Treasurer
JAMES DOMINE MUSIC DIRECTORPRESIDENT
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
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
19 / 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 26 → 19 over 5 years (declining by 7 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 80.0% 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.