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
33
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
30
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2023 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 37 Fragile Recovery
2020 38 Fragile Recovery
2019 40 Fragile Recovery
2018 37 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 39 Fragile Recovery
2015 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 37 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER CHO EXECUTIVE DI
AT NGUYEN Board Member
ERIC BECK Treasurer
MICK BEEKHUIZEN Board Member
LESLEY SILVESTER Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER CHO EXECUTIVE DI
AT NGUYEN Board Member
ERIC BECK Treasurer
MICK BEEKHUIZEN Board Member
LESLEY SILVESTER Board President
JENNIFER CHO EXECUTIVE DI
AT NGUYEN Board Member
ERIC BECK Treasurer
MICK BEEKHUIZEN Board Member
LESLEY SILVESTER Board President
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
30 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
33 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 163 other orgs in MD with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 28 points below the peer median (30 vs. 58).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 38 → 33 over 5 years (declining by 5 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.