Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Stable
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

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 52 Fragile Recovery
2022 Hidden Hidden 48 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 52 Fragile Recovery
2020 46 Financially Distressed Recovery
2019 44 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 44 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2017 52 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 7.1% 54 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 7.0% 54 Fragile Recovery
2014 5.8% 52 Fragile Recovery
2013 6.2% 48 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 8.1% 48 Fragile Recovery
2011 9.5% 44 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
FRANK HANENBERGER Board Member
ED HUDSON Secretary
RICK JENNETT Board Member
STEPHEN KAPLAN Board Member
DAVID LAVALLEY EXECUTIVE DI
ED STRICKLAND Board Member
ANTONIO VIVA Board Member
STEVEN WILSON Treasurer
WILLIAM BACHMAN Board Member
RICKY BALL Board Member
MICHAEL COLLINS Board President
TOM HALCHUK Board Member
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
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 245 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 31 points above the peer median (60 vs. 29).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 44 → 52 over 5 years (improving by 8 points).

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.