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
53
Score
Governance
58
Score
Financial
45
Score
Program
60
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
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 3.4% 53 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2022 2.3% 51 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 10.4% 44 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2020 7.1% 50 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2019 6.0% 48 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 1.2% 49 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2017 0.9% 53 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 1.5% 47 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2015 4.0% 47 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 3.1% 47 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2013 1.6% 53 Fragile Decline Risk
2012 0.9% 53 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 0.8% 53 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PAUL SCHOFER Executive Director 2.3% of Rev
PATRICK DONNELLY Vice President 1.0% of Rev
WILLIAM MILLER Vice President 1.0% of Rev
LISA VOSS Board Member 1.0% of Rev
COLBY JONES Treasurer 0.9% of Rev
TRISHA DRAPE Vice President 0.8% of Rev
JULIA IRENE KAUFFMAN Board President
DAVID C LADY Board President
SHIRLEY HELZBERG Treasurer
KEN DWORAK Secretary
SHARON BLICKENSDERFER Board Member
PEGGY DUNN Board Member
RUSTY JANDL Board Member
JAN KRAEMER Board Member
LOU SMITH Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PAUL SCHOFER Executive Director 2.0% of Rev
JANET MARK Board Member 0.9% of Rev
WILLIAM MILLER Vice President 0.9% of Rev
PATRICK DONNELLY Board Member 0.9% of Rev
COLBY JONES CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 0.8% of Rev
JULIA IRENE KAUFFMAN Board President
DAVID LADY Board President
KEN DWORAK Secretary
SHIRLEY BUSH HELZBERG Treasurer
SHARON BLICKENSDERFER Board Member
PEGGY DUNN Board Member
RUSTY JANDL Board Member
JANICE KREAMER Board Member
LOUIS SMITH Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PAUL SCHOFER Executive Director 1.8% of Rev
JANET MARK Board Member 0.9% of Rev
BILL MILLER Vice President 0.9% of Rev
PATRICK DONNELLY Board Member 0.9% of Rev
COLBY JONES CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 0.7% of Rev
LISA VOSS Board Member 0.6% of Rev
JULIA IRENE KAUFFMAN Board President
SHIRLEY BUSH HELZBERG Treasurer
KEN DWORAK Secretary
DAVID LADY Board President
LOUIS SMITH Board Member
PEGGY DUNN Board Member
JANICE KREAMER Board Member
SHARON BLICKENSDERFER Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PAUL SCHOFER Executive Director 1.9% of Rev
JANET MARK Board Member 0.9% of Rev
LISA VOSS Board Member 0.9% of Rev
PATRICK DONNELLY Board Member 0.9% of Rev
BILL MILLER Vice President 0.9% of Rev
COLBY JONES CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 0.6% of Rev
JULIA IRENE KAUFFMAN Board President
SHIRLEY BUSH HELZBERG Treasurer
KEN DWORAK Secretary
DAVID LADY Board President
LOUIS SMITH Board Member
PEGGY DUNN Board Member
JANICE KREAMER Board Member
SHARON BLICKENSDERFER Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
45 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
58 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
53 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 104 other orgs in MO with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 30 points above the peer median (60 vs. 30).

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. 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.