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
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Steady State ↓
Overall
37
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
30
Score
Program
45
Score
Title
-
Institutions
-
Avg Revenue
-
Risk Profile
Representative Institutions
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Hidden | Hidden | — | — | Unknown | — | |
| 2023 | — | — | 16.5% | 37 | Financially Distressed | Decline Risk | |
| 2022 | — | — | 13.8% | 45 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2021 | — | — | 20.7% | 39 | Fragile | Gov Risk | |
| 2020 | — | — | 21.5% | 45 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2019 | — | — | 12.3% | 40 | Fragile | Stable Watch | |
| 2018 | — | — | 6.8% | 42 | Fragile | Stable Watch | |
| 2017 | — | — | 6.1% | 42 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2016 | — | — | 8.2% | 34 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2015 | — | — | 15.7% | 25 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2014 | — | — | 8.9% | 34 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2013 | — | — | 9.3% | 28 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2012 | — | — | 13.8% | 24 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2011 | — | — | 9.8% | 34 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch | |
| 2010 | — | — | 7.8% | 38 | Financially Distressed | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2025
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAYNE TRENT | Board Member | 17.3% of Rev | ||
| JUDGE JAMES R WILSON | Board Member | — | ||
| STEVE JARBOE | Board Member | — | ||
| BONNY MM LINK | Board Member | — | ||
| SHAWNA R JONES | Board Member | — | ||
| STEPHANIE DARBO | Board Member | — | ||
| CAROLINE JEROME | Board Member | — | ||
| STEPHANIE LEBLANC | Board Member | — | ||
| JOLEEN ABARCA JOHNSON | Board Member | — | ||
| CARLEE BYRD-IRWIN | Board Member | — | ||
| ELEANOR WADDELL | Board Member | — | ||
| JULIAN ACKERLEY | Board Member | — | ||
| CARRIE HENSLEY | Board Member | — | ||
| SARA MURPHY | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JUDGE JAMES R WILSON | Board Member | — | ||
| KATHLEEN DAVIS CARTER | Board Member | — | ||
| SANDRA GARZA | Board Member | — | ||
| STEVE JARBOE | Board Member | — | ||
| DON RATHMAN | Board Member | — | ||
| MARK A ROSS | Board Member | — | ||
| LAYNE TRENT | Board Member | — | ||
| BONNY MM LINK | Board Member | — | ||
| SCOTT MURRAY | Board Member | — | ||
| DR ASHLY SPENCER | Board Member | — | ||
| TIM MADDOCK | Board Member | — | ||
| SHAWNA C RUSSELL | Board Member | — | ||
| STEPHANIE DARBO | Board Member | — | ||
| CAROLINE JEROME | Board Member | — | ||
| STEPHANIE LEBLANC | Board Member | — | ||
| CRAIG W SPENCER | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2021
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JUDGE JAMES R WILSON | Board Member | — | ||
| ALEXANDRA MARTIN | Board Member | — | ||
| KATHLEEN DAVIS CARTER | Board Member | — | ||
| HARVEY CRANE | Board Member | — | ||
| SANDRA GARZA | Board Member | — | ||
| STEVE JARBOE | Board Member | — | ||
| DON RATHMAN | Board Member | — | ||
| DR JAY THOMPSON | Board Member | — | ||
| MARK A ROSS | Board Member | — | ||
| LAYNE TRENT | Board Member | — | ||
| D MARC FUNDERBURK | Board Member | — | ||
| BONNY MM LINK | Board Member | — | ||
| SCOTT MURRAY | Board Member | — | ||
| DR ASHLY SPENCER | Board Member | — | ||
| TIM MADDOCK | Board Member | — |
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown
Score breakdown
Financial resilience
30 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
37 / 100
Priority Review
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 132 other orgs in TX with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: program score sits 13 points above the peer median (45 vs. 32).
5-year trend: Steady State
No extreme longitudinal divergence detected. The organization is maintaining its current operational philosophy.
What's driving this score
- Comp-to-revenue ratio of 16.5% sits within the sector's healthy band (18–22%).
- Financial resilience score in the bottom quartile — reserves and liabilities ratios warrant review.
What would change this score
The two changes that would most improve this score:
- Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
- 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.