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
45
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
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
2024 Hidden Hidden 20.4% 39 Fragile Gov Risk
2023 Hidden Hidden 22.4% 43 Fragile Gov Risk
2022 13.2% 49 Fragile Recovery
2021 24.9% 43 Fragile Recovery
2020 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2019 45 Financially Distressed Recovery
2018 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2017 43 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2016 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 49 Fragile Recovery
2014 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DIANE VEALE Board Member 20.1% of Rev
RANDY VEALE Board Member
CARMEN SCHWEIGER Board Member
SARAH GRAVES Board Member
KRISTIN LOHRENTZ Board Member
SHAWN LYON Board Member
AMANDA SEEFELDT Board Member
JOE BURNETT Board President
THERESA SCHAUER Board President
ANNE TESKA Secretary
KEITH KULAS Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 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 103 other orgs in WI with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: governance score sits 5 points below the peer median (45 vs. 50).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 41 → 39 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. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).

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