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
31
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
20
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 16.2% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2023 25 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 18.2% 46 Fragile Recovery
2021 21.3% 42 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Cynthia Carrell Board Member 16.2% of Rev
Scott Carrell Board President
Gary Turner Board President
Rachel Stegall Secretary
Carla Chance Treasurer
Mike Chance Board Member
Shelly Faulkner Board Member
Rich O'Connell Board Member
Andrea O'Connell Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Cynthia Carrell Board Member 13.6% of Rev
Michael Chance Board President
David Evans Board President
Felicia Evans Secretary
Carla Chance Treasurer
Scott Carrell Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Cynthia Carrell Board Member 10.3% of Rev
Cynthia Carrell Board Member 8.0% of Rev
Michael Chance Board President
David Evans Board President
Felicia Evans Secretary
Carla Chance Treasurer
Scott Carrell Board Member
Michael Chance Board President
David Evans Board President
Felicia Evans Secretary
Carla Chance Treasurer
Scott Carrell Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
20 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
31 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 34 other orgs in AR with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 9 points below the peer median (20 vs. 29).

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).
  2. 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.