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
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Steady State ↑
Overall
40
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
30
Score
Program
30
Score
Title
-
Institutions
-
Avg Revenue
-
Risk Profile
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
2010
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Hidden | Hidden | — | — | Unknown | — | |
| 2023 | Hidden | Hidden | — | 40 | Financially Distressed | Recovery | |
| 2022 | — | — | — | 36 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2021 | — | — | 27.3% | 31 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2020 | — | — | 16.5% | 30 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2019 | — | — | 11.6% | 33 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2018 | — | — | — | 41 | Financially Distressed | Decline Risk | |
| 2017 | — | — | — | 43 | Financially Distressed | Stable Watch | |
| 2016 | — | — | — | 43 | Financially Distressed | Recovery | |
| 2015 | — | — | — | 37 | Financially Distressed | Decline Risk | |
| 2014 | — | — | — | 41 | Financially Distressed | Recovery | |
| 2013 | — | — | — | 31 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2012 | — | — | — | 35 | Financially Distressed | Decline Risk | |
| 2011 | — | — | — | 41 | Fragile | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2025
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TREVOR THOMPSON | EXEC DIRECTO | — | ||
| RON MCGLAUGHLIN | Board President | — | ||
| RACHAEL HARTMAN | VICE PRESIDE | — | ||
| LAURA ZIMMERMAN | Secretary | — | ||
| REGINALD ADAMS JR | Board Member | — | ||
| MICHAEL BLACK | Board Member | — | ||
| SARAH SCHOUTEN | Board Member | — | ||
| DOROTHEA STAHL | Board Member | — | ||
| STEPHEN SELFE | Board Member | — | ||
| MORGAN WASIKONIS | Board Member | — | ||
| KAREN BLAIR BRAND | EMERITUS BOA | — | ||
| MICHAEL DIVINO | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANNA SKRUPKY | FORMER EXEC | 15.3% of Rev | ||
| LAURENCE MROZ | Board President | — | ||
| ARTHUR CURTZE | VICE PRESIDE | — | ||
| LYNN HUTCHESON | Board Member | — | ||
| RON MCGLAUGHLIN | Secretary | — | ||
| FRITZ SMITH | Board Member | — | ||
| NINA WOSKOB | Board Member | — | ||
| JAMES LYON | Board Member | — | ||
| KAREN BLAIR BRAND | EMERITUS BOA | — | ||
| IAN DUH | EXEC DIRECTO | — | ||
| SUSAN BERBEC | Treasurer | — | ||
| MICHAEL BLACK | Board Member | — | ||
| RACHAEL HARTMAN | Board Member | — | ||
| LAURA ZIMMERMAN | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2022
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANNA SKRUPKY | EXECUTIVE DI | 14.1% of Rev | ||
| LAURENCE MROZ | Board President | — | ||
| ARTHUR CURTZE | VICE PRESIDE | — | ||
| SUSAN BERBEC | Treasurer | — | ||
| FRITZ SMITH | Board Member | — | ||
| NINA WOSKOB | Board Member | — | ||
| LYNN HUTCHESON | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2021
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANNA SKRUPKY | EXECUTIVE DI | 12.9% of Rev | ||
| LAURENCE MROZ | Board President | — | ||
| ARTHUR CURTZE | VICE PRESIDE | — | ||
| LYNN HUTCHESON | Treasurer | — | ||
| RON MCGLAUGHLIN | Secretary | — | ||
| HYUNJU CURTIN | Board Member | — | ||
| FRITZ SMITH | Board Member | — | ||
| NINA WOSKOB | Board Member | — | ||
| ANNE HUTCHESON | Board Member | — | ||
| JAMES LYON | Board Member | — | ||
| KAREN BLAIR BRAND | EMERITUS BOA | — |
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
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
40 / 100
Priority Review
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 462 other orgs in PA with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: financial score sits 23 points below the peer median (30 vs. 53).
5-year trend: Steady State
No extreme longitudinal divergence detected. The organization is maintaining its current operational philosophy.
What's driving this score
- All-volunteer org with no paid officers — governance signal is neutral (default 50), not absent.
- Net assets declined for 3 consecutive years of deficit spending; cash runway narrowing.
- Financial resilience score in the bottom quartile — reserves and liabilities ratios warrant review.
What would change this score
The two changes that would most improve this score:
- Build cash reserves to at least 3 months of operating expenses — moves financial resilience score meaningfully (~10 points).
- 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.