Institutional Maturation
Institutional Maturation
Institutional Maturation Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
Trajectory Thumbprint

Institutional Maturation

What does this mean?

The gold standard. 10-year slow, steady, concurrent growth across Financial Health, Governance, and Program. Leadership is scaling their oversight and impact in lockstep.

The Path Forward

The Crown

A mandate to lead the sector. It encourages the organization to mentor emerging nonprofits and embark on generational capital projects, leveraging their profound stability.

The Crown
The Crown
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Institutional Maturation ↑
Overall
58
Score
Governance
58
Score
Financial
75
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Institutional Maturation

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2025 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 — — 4.1% 58 Fragile Decline Risk
2022 Hidden Hidden 6.8% 63 Stable Stable Watch
2021 — — — 57 Fragile Recovery
2020 — — 3.6% 56 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — — 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 — — — 55 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 43 Fragile Recovery
2016 — — — 37 Fragile Recovery
2015 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 — — — 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2011 — — — 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
THERESIA ROGERS Board Member 1.1% of Rev
KIMBERLY CARNAHAN Treasurer 0.8% of Rev
DAWN ELDRED Board Member 0.7% of Rev
SAMANTHA WILSON Board Member 0.6% of Rev
ALICIA RIDER Board Member 0.4% of Rev
CHRISTINE CLINTON-CALI Secretary 0.3% of Rev
CHRIS ELDRED Board Member 0.3% of Rev
LINDA PEASLEY Board President 0.2% of Rev
JOHN SLEMP Board Member 0.1% of Rev
HEATHER DOUGLAS Board Member 0.1% of Rev
LYNDA BEDNARCZYK VICE-PRESIDE 0.0% of Rev
AMBER CARNAHAN Board Member —
CRISTIAN LABAR Board Member —
GILBERT BAZIL VICE-PRESIDE —

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
THERESIA ROGERS Board Member 1.2% of Rev
DAWN ELDRED Board Member 0.6% of Rev
KIM CARNAHAN Treasurer 0.5% of Rev
LYNDA BEDNARCZYK VICE-PRESIDE 0.5% of Rev
LINDA PEASLEY VICE-PRESIDE 0.4% of Rev
BRIAN BICKEL Board Member 0.3% of Rev
CHRIS ELDRED Board Member 0.2% of Rev
ALICIA RIDER Board Member 0.2% of Rev
CHRIS CLINTON-CALI Board President 0.1% of Rev
HEATHER DOUGLAS Board Member 0.1% of Rev
CRISTIAN LABAR Board Member 0.0% of Rev
AMBER CARNAHAN Board Member —
JOHN SLEMP Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
THERESIA ROGERS Board Member 1.2% of Rev
SUSAN GRONOW Secretary 0.8% of Rev
DAWN ELDRED Board Member 0.7% of Rev
KEVIN ROGERS VICE-PRESIDE 0.7% of Rev
KIM CARNAHAN Treasurer 0.5% of Rev
LYNDA BEDNARCZYK Board Member 0.5% of Rev
LINDA PEASLEY VICE-PRESIDE 0.4% of Rev
BRIAN BICKEL Board Member 0.3% of Rev
CHRIS ELDRED Board Member 0.1% of Rev
CHRIS CLINTON-CALI Board President 0.1% of Rev
HEATHER DOUGLAS Board Member 0.1% of Rev
ANGELA OTTO Board Member 0.1% of Rev
CRISTIAN LABAR Board Member 0.0% of Rev
SHANNON MANNING Board Member —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
THERESIA ROGERS Board Member 0.7% of Rev
KIM CARNAHAN Treasurer 0.3% of Rev
KATIE JOHNSON Board Member 0.3% of Rev
KEVIN ROGERS VICE-PRESIDE 0.3% of Rev
SUSAN GRONOW Secretary 0.3% of Rev
CHRIS CLINTON-CALI Board President —
LINDA PEASLEY VICE-PRESIDE —
BRIAN BICKEL Board Member —
DAWN ELDRED Board Member —
HEATHER DOUGLAS Board Member —
LYNDA BEDNARCZYK Board Member —
SHANNON MANNING Board Member —
SHERRY RANDALL Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
75 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
58 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
58 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 281 other orgs in MI with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 20 points above the peer median (75 vs. 55).

5-year trend: Institutional Maturation

The gold standard. 10-year slow, steady, concurrent growth across Financial Health, Governance, and Program. Leadership is scaling their oversight and impact in lockstep.

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.