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
41
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
5
Score

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
2023 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 44 Fragile Stable Watch
2021 44 Fragile Recovery
2020 37 Fragile Stable Watch
2019 37 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 37 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 37 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 37 Fragile Recovery
2015 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 37 Fragile Recovery
2011 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Devin Pohly Board President
Stephen Ulrich Secretary
Ruth Runeborg Treasurer
Georges Augustin Board Member
Joel Pearson Board Member
Mary Tabatowski Board Member
David Wells Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Tovia Bat-Leah Board President
Jack Levie Secretary
Ruth Runeborg Treasurer
Georges Augustin Board Member
Eric Duncan Board Member
Devin Pohly Board Member
Diane Sutliff 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
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
41 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 27 other orgs in IL with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 24 points below the peer median (5 vs. 29).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 37 → 41 over 5 years (improving by 4 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.

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