Acute Stabilization
Acute Stabilization
Acute Stabilization Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint

Acute Stabilization

What does this mean?

A successful crisis intervention. After hitting the Priority Review risk tier, the organization demonstrates consecutive years of Financial Score recovery paired with Governance Score improvement.

The Path Forward

The Dawn

Institutionalizes the emergency protocols that saved the organization. It locks in new, rigorous governance policies to prevent a relapse into crisis.

The Dawn
The Dawn
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Acute Stabilization ↑
Overall
43
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Acute Stabilization

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2023 — — — 43 Fragile Recovery
2022 — — 78.2% 20 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2021 — — 110.6% 20 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 — — — 37 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 — — — 37 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 — — — 41 Fragile Recovery
2015 — — — 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Crista Phelps Board Member 44.0% of Rev
George Bodbyl Board President —
Michelle Bodbyl Secretary —
Kirsten DeVries Treasurer —
Clinton VanderKolk Vice-All —
Renee VanderKolk Board Member —
Eric Phelps Board Member —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Crista Phelps Board Member 33.4% of Rev
George Bodbyl Board President —
Michelle Bodbyl Secretary —
Kirsten DeVries Treasurer —
Clinton VanderKolk Vice-All —
Renee VanderKolk Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
55 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
43 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 280 other orgs in MI with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 13 points below the peer median (15 vs. 28).

5-year trend: Acute Stabilization

A successful crisis intervention. After hitting the Priority Review risk tier, the organization demonstrates consecutive years of Financial Score recovery paired with Governance Score improvement.

Overall score has gone from 27 → 43 over 5 years (improving by 16 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.