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
34
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

2015
2016
2017
2018
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 17.0% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 38.9% 39 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2021 32.5% 40 Fragile Gov Risk
2020 13.5% 55 Fragile Recovery
2019 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 51 Fragile Recovery
2017 43 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2016 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Cindy Lescarbeau Board President 12.3% of Rev
Lisa Smith DirectorTeacher 4.7% of Rev
Madeline Tyser Asst TreasurerTeacher 4.3% of Rev
Natalie McCall Board President
Kim Freeman Secretary
Emily Kristine Light Secretary
John Freed Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Cindy Lescarbeau Board President 7.1% of Rev
Lisa Smith DirectorTeacher 5.0% of Rev
Madeline Tyser Asst TreasurerTeacher 3.3% of Rev
Natalie McCall Board President
Kim Freeman Secretary
Emily Kristine Light Secretary
John Freed Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Cindy Lescarbeau Board President 6.7% of Rev
Natalie McCall Board President
Melanie Dolich Secretary
Kim Freeman Board Member
Loray Blair-Britt Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
25 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
34 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 244 other orgs in FL with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 14 points above the peer median (45 vs. 31).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 51 → 34 over 5 years (declining by 17 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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).
  2. Build cash reserves to at least 3 months of operating expenses — moves financial resilience score meaningfully (~10 points).

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