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
43
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
35
Score
Program
45
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
2023 — — — 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2022 — — — 49 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — — 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 — — — 52 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — — 51 Fragile Recovery
2018 — — — 48 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 — — — 48 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 — — — 48 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 — — — 52 Fragile Recovery
2014 — — — 48 Fragile Decline Risk
2013 — — — 52 Fragile Recovery
2012 — — — 48 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 — — — 52 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MARK HASKELL Treasurer —
SCOTT HOLTZ Board Member —
SHERYL KAUFMAN Board Member —
SANDRA KENT Board Member —
SCOTT SABINE Board Member —
DANIEL ADAMS Board Member —
CHARLIE DANIELS Secretary —
BRAD DOENGES Board President —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CHARLIE DANIELS Secretary —
BRAD DOENGES Board President —
DAVID HALE Board Member —
DAVID HALE Board Member —
MARK HASKELL Treasurer —
SCOTT HOTZ Board Member —
FAROOQ KARIM Board Member —
SHERYL KAUFMAN Board Member —
SANDRA KENT Board Member —
ROBBIE MORRIS VICE CHAIRMA —
SCOTT SABINE Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
35 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
43 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 95 other orgs in OK with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 14 points below the peer median (35 vs. 49).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 51 → 43 over 5 years (declining by 8 points).

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.