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
36
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
30
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2024 36 Fragile Recovery
2023 Hidden Hidden 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 40 Fragile Recovery
2020 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MARK FISCHER Board President
MATT VAN HAM Board Member
JAY THORNTON Board President
CHRISTINE VITKAY Treasurer
JENNIFER OBRYCKI Secretary

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER GOLDSMITH Secretary
ALICIA DENSEL Treasurer
PATTY NOVAK Board President
JENNIFER CORREIA Secretary
MATT VAN HAM Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DOROTHY VANDE KIEFT Board President
MICHELLE PAWL Treasurer
PATTY NOVAK Secretary
JENNIFER CORREIA Secretary
ELIZABETH HERING Board Member
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
36 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 186 other orgs in MI with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 13 points below the peer median (15 vs. 28).

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. Build cash reserves to at least 3 months of operating expenses — moves financial resilience score meaningfully (~10 points).
  2. 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.