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
21
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
5
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2011
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
2024 Hidden Hidden 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2023 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 41 Fragile Recovery
2020 38 Fragile Recovery
2019 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2014 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2012 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JOHN NIESON Board President
SARAH COHEN ADMINISTRATION
HELEN FRIZO DEVELOPMENT
MARILYNN LEEDOM Secretary
MARGEE KACZMAREK PERSONNEL
B PATRICK AHERN Treasurer

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
RICHARD BLAUVELT Board President
ROBIN FIELDERMATT WATSON Vice President
MARILYNN LEEDOM Secretary
BARRY SMITH Vice President
DONNA PAGE Treasurer
SARAH COHEN Vice President
DANA RIMELSPACH Vice President
MARILYNN RUSCHE Board Member
HELEN FRIZZO DEVELOPMENT
COURTNEY OSKOIAN DEVELOPMENT
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
5 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
21 / 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: financial score sits 36 points below the peer median (5 vs. 41).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 38 → 21 over 5 years (declining by 17 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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).

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