Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Stable
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
46
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 Hidden Hidden — 46 Fragile Recovery
2022 — — — 43 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — — 40 Fragile Recovery
2020 — — — 47 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — — 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 — — — 49 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 — — — 43 Fragile Recovery
2015 — — — 37 Fragile Recovery
2014 — — — 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 — — — 39 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Mark Niemer Board President —
Greg Orwoll Treasurer —
Jeannie Adams Board Member —
Sarah Slaughter Board Member —
Dan Knepper Board Member —
Mia Scott Secretary —
Payton Bellings Board President —
Joe Amato Board Member —
Tara Dunn Board Member —
Susan Tonn Board Member —
Tricia Mullen Board Member —
Doug Henry Board Member —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Mark Niemer Board President —
Bob North Board President —
Erin Beatty Secretary —
Victoria Schuler Treasurer —
Jeannie Adams Board Member —
Kim Barnes Board Member —
Mary Bryant Board Member —
Jenna Matthew Board Member —
Mark Oppedahl Board Member —
Greg Orwoll Board Member —
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
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
46 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 111 other orgs in IA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 15 points below the peer median (15 vs. 30).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Stabilize program expenses or grow earned-income revenue to break the consecutive-deficit pattern (~8 points to financial score).

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