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
51
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
50
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 19.4% 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 12.6% 52 Fragile Recovery
2021 19.1% 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2020 15.4% 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2019 18.4% 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 19.2% 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 17.7% 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 19.4% 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 16.9% 47 Fragile Recovery
2014 23.0% 45 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2013 19.4% 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 20.2% 51 Fragile Gov Risk

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Stephen Stuempfle Executive Direc 19.4% of Rev
Melvin Butler Board President
Tomie Hahn Board President
Damascus Kafumbe Secretary
Denise Gill Treasurer
Samuel Araujo 1st Vice-Presid
Chad S Hamill 2nd Vice-Presid
Dwandalyn R Reece Board Member
Zoe Sherinian Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Stephen Stuempfle Executive Direc 17.2% of Rev
Tes Slominski Secretary
Adriana Helbig Treasurer
Beverley Diamond Board President
Alejandro L Madrid 1st Vice-Presid
Frederick Lau 2nd Vice- Presi
Jean Ngoya Kidula Board Member
Alisha Lola Jones Board Member
Tomie Hahn Board President
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
50 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
51 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 24 other orgs in IN with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 33 points above the peer median (60 vs. 27).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 51 → 51 over 5 years (stable by 0 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).

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