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
39
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 13.8% 39 Fragile Decline Risk
2023 53 Fragile Recovery
2022 21.1% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LAUREN HENSARLING Executive Director 8.8% of Rev
MEGAN KARR Board President 4.9% of Rev
BECCA GODKIN Secretary
MARY KATE FEASTER Treasurer
ALLISON FLORCZAK Board Member
RACHEL HAMILTON Board Member
JACOB HENSARLING Board Member
KENT KIRKMAN Board Member
KEVIN TIMMONS Board Member
GINA HAMADA Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LAUREN HENSARLING Board President 5.5% of Rev
MEGAN KARR Board President 3.6% of Rev
MARY KATE FEASTER Treasurer
ALLISON FLORCZAK Board President
RACHEL HAMILTON Board President
JACOB HENSARLING Board President

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Lauren Hensarling Executive Director 1.9% of Rev
Megan Karr Executive Director 1.2% of Rev
McKenna Carr Key Staff 0.4% of Rev
Allison Florczak Board Member
Blake Godkin Board Member
Becca Godkin Board Member
Rachel Hamilton Board Member
Mary Kate Feaster Board Member
Jacob Hensarling Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
25 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
39 / 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

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.