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
54
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
80
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
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
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2024 37.3% 54 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2023 Hidden Hidden 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 43 Fragile Recovery
2021 39 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 54 Fragile Recovery
2019 65 Stable Stable Watch
2018 57 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 61 Stable Stable Watch
2016 57 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 61 Stable Stable Watch
2014 61 Stable Stable Watch
2013 57 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 57 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 57 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SARAH MCALINN ADMINISTRATO 37.3% of Rev
JACKIE DIRSCHERL Board Member
JAN DOCKENDORF Board Member
WILLIAM L GETTYS Treasurer
MARY JO LAPORTE Secretary
TOD M LEAVEN Board Member
REVEREND WILLIAM E SMITH Board President
MARCIE STUTZMAN VICE PRESIDE
LESLIE WELKER Board Member
JESSICA RUGH FRANTZ Board Member
KYM VERHOVSHEK Board Member
POLLY FIETZINGER Board Member
MARILYNNE HERBERT Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
VALERIE POULLETTE ALTMAN Board President
MARILYNNE HERBERT VICE PRESIDE
RICHARD SMITH Treasurer
MARY HOLMES Secretary
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
80 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
54 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 146 other orgs in NC with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 43 points above the peer median (80 vs. 37).

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 37.3% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~31 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.