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
52
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
50
Score
Program
60
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 Hidden Hidden 11.4% 52 Fragile Recovery
2022 17.8% 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 12.6% 52 Fragile Recovery
2020 9.3% 50 Fragile Recovery
2019 17.7% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 14.3% 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 17.3% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 14.3% 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 18.8% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 19.6% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 27.1% 24 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SHONNA JAMES Executive Director 11.0% of Rev
JAY JENNINGS Board Member
MARY NEUBAUER Board Member
TODD FELTUS BOARD COUNSEL
JANA WELDON Board Member
BRETT BENTON Board Member
CHRIS ORKILD Treasurer
GLORIA ARGUESO Secretary

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SHONNA JAMES Board President 8.8% of Rev
MARY NEUBAUER Board Member
TODD FELTUS BOARD COUNEL
GLORIA ARGUESO Secretary
JAY JENNINGS Board President
CHRIS E ORKILD Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
50 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
52 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 9 other orgs in AZ with NTEE prefix A5.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 18 points above the peer median (50 vs. 32).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 29 → 52 over 5 years (improving by 23 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

What's driving this score

What would change this score

No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.

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