Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Stable
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
65
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
100
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 — — — 65 Stable Stable Watch
2022 — — — 64 Stable Stable Watch
2021 — — — 55 Fragile Recovery
2020 — — — 50 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — — 57 Fragile Recovery
2018 — — — 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 — — — 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 — — — 59 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Dawn Kocher Board Member —
Gillian Cramer Board President —
Anna Liza Raboza Board Member —
Brittany Varwig Board Member —
Laura Carlson Board Member —
Amanda Connon Secretary —
Kelli Zurek Board Member —
Laura Buckley Board Member —
Tricia Glenn Board Member —
FRAN TINKHAM Board Member —
Sarah Hall Board Member —
Willis Barber Board President —
Meghan Pantages Board Member —
Brandi Young Treasurer —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Sarah Hall Secretary —
Gillian Cramer Board President —
Anna Liza Raboza Board Member —
Kim Skibinski Board Member —
Laura Carlson Treasurer —
Amanda Connon Board Member —
Kelli Zurek Board Member —
Laura Buckley Board Member —
Tricia Glenn Board Member —
FRAN TINKHAM Board Member —
Jessica Dobra Board Member —
Willis Barber Board President —
Meghan Pantages Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
100 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
65 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 376 other orgs in IL with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 43 points above the peer median (100 vs. 57).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 57 → 65 over 5 years (improving by 8 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.