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
40
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
60
Score
Program
15
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 40 Fragile Recovery
2022 59.5% 35 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2021 56.1% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2020 42 Fragile Recovery
2019 20.8% 42 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2018 16.3% 43 Fragile Recovery
2017 18.1% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 37 Fragile Recovery
2013 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2012 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2011 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Toby Sullivan Executive Director 61.4% of Rev
Trent Dobson Board President
Marty Owen Board President
Jessica Edelson Treasurer
Eva Holm Board Member
Rob Hoedel Board Member
Richard Carstens Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Toby Sullivan Executive Director 62.0% of Rev
Trent Dobson Board President
Marty Owen Board President
Jessica Edelson Treasurer
Cece Franko Secretary
Shelly Egle Board Member
Rob Hoedel Board Member
Eva Holm Board Member
Freddie Christiansen Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
60 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
40 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Fewer than 3 peers found in AK for this NTEE subcategory; peer comparison would not be statistically meaningful.

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 42 → 40 over 5 years (declining by 2 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Stabilize program expenses or grow earned-income revenue to break the consecutive-deficit pattern (~8 points to financial score).

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