Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
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
50
Score
Governance
55
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
60
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 — — 6.5% 50 Fragile Recovery
2022 — — 12.2% 47 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — 29.3% 38 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 — — 9.4% 46 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2019 — — 9.7% 46 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 — — 8.5% 50 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 — — 8.9% 50 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 — — 9.1% 50 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 — — 8.9% 50 Fragile Recovery
2014 — — 10.2% 44 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2013 — — 8.8% 50 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 — — 9.2% 50 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ROGER A HALL Executive Director 7.2% of Rev
JAY WARDESKA Executive Director 3.4% of Rev
DANIEL RUCKMAN Board President —
BRIAN STEVENS Board President —
ANN USHER Board President —
BRANDON DUVALL Treasurer —
JODI SMITH Secretary —
SHAWN REYNOLDS EDITOR OF TRIAD —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ROGER A HALL Executive Director 7.8% of Rev
ANN USHER Board President —
DANIEL RUCKMAN Board President —
KATHLEEN MCGRADY Board President —
MICHAEL KELLY Treasurer —
ROBERT ANTONUCCI Secretary —
TERRI LENZO EDITOR OF TRIAD —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
55 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
50 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 330 other orgs in OH with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 30 points above the peer median (60 vs. 30).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 46 → 50 over 5 years (improving by 4 points).

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.