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
44
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2024 40.7% 44 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2023 51 Fragile Recovery
2022 56.4% 48 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2021 47 Fragile Recovery
2020 55.0% 48 Fragile Gov Risk
2019 47 Fragile Recovery
2018 43 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2017 43 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JAIME ZAYAS Board Member 24.9% of Rev
VANESSA WAGGONER Board Member 15.8% of Rev
ANGIE THOMPSON Treasurer
JENNIFER BRODY Board President
JOTHAM CORTEZ Board President
CHARITY CORTEZ Secretary
DIANNE MUELLER Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JAIME ZAYAS Board Member 26.0% of Rev
VANESSA WAGGONER Board Member 14.6% of Rev
ANGIE THOMPSON Treasurer
JENNIFER BRODY Board President
JOTHAM CORTEZ Board President
CHARITY CORTEZ Secretary

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JAIME ZAYAS Board Member 17.8% of Rev
VANESSA WAGGONER Board Member 14.0% of Rev
KEVIN SWINIGAN Treasurer
JENNIFER BRODY Board President
JOTHAM CORTEZ Board President
CHARITY CORTEZ Secretary
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
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
44 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 104 other orgs in MO with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 17 points above the peer median (55 vs. 38).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Reduce top-officer compensation from 40.7% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~37 points.
  2. 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.