Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
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
50
Score
Governance
58
Score
Financial
50
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 — — 4.4% 50 Fragile Gov Risk
2022 — — — 58 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — — 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2020 — — — 58 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DAVID G TAYLOR Board President —
MARY WILSON Board President —
WILLIAM KORBEL Treasurer —
ARTHUR ANDERSON Secretary —
MARCO CHAVARRY Board Member —
LOUISE VALENTIN Board Member —
JOHN BALICH Board Member —
THOMAS FLINT Board Member —
PAT PUTNAM Board Member —
RON SPEARS Board Member —
DIANE RUZEVICH Board Member —
DAVE GROSSE Board Member —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DAVID G TAYLOR Board President —
WILLIAM KORBEL Treasurer —
ARTHUR ANDERSON Secretary —
JOHN BALICH Board Member —
PHILIP BAUMAN Board Member —
MEGAN BOWEN Board Member —
MARCO CHAVARRY Board Member —
THOMAS FLINT Board Member —
PAT PUTNAM Board Member —
LAURA ROBERTS Board Member —
RON SPEARS Board Member —
MARY WILSON 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
58 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
50 / 100
Developing

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 17 points above the peer median (45 vs. 28).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 58 → 50 over 4 years (declining 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.