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
56
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
90
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
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
2025 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2024 Hidden Hidden 18.5% 56 Fragile Recovery
2023 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2022 Hidden Hidden — 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 — — — 45 Fragile Recovery
2012 — — — 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 — — — 41 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PAUL ARNOLD EXECUTIVE DI 10.3% of Rev
NICOLE KATZMAN Treasurer 8.2% of Rev
DIANA MICHAEL Board President —
DARLA WORTLEY Secretary —
SHEILA FRANK Board Member —
DIANE HAMMERMAN Board Member —
MICHAEL L PRESANT Board Member —
JOHN ROBINSON Board Member —
ROBERT FRANCIOSI Board Member —
MARY BETH QUILLIN Board Member —
JUDY SUBAR Board Member —
NANCY BENEDITTI Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
90 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
56 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 280 other orgs in MI with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 36 points above the peer median (90 vs. 54).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

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.