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
65
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 Hidden Hidden 0.3% 50 Fragile Recovery
2023 — — — 41 Financially Distressed Recovery
2020 — — — 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 — — — 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Renate Thomas Librarian 0.3% of Rev
Mike Arnold Secretary —
Dora Bronston Board President —
Jackie Davis Board President —
Matthew Dixon Legal Affaires —
Dana Kolovson Treasurer —
Gary Rasmussen Board President —
Michael Shaffer Board President —
Joanne Shaffer Personnal Manager —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Mike Arnold Secretary —
Dora Bronston Public Relations —
Jackie Davis Board President —
Matthew Dixon Legal Affairs —
Dana Kolovson Treasurer —
Gary Rasmussen Board President —
Michael Shaffer Board President —
Fred Thiergartner C0-Fundraising —
Genie Thiergartner Co-Fundraising —
Renate Thomas Librarian —
Joanne Shaffer Personnel Manager —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
65 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
58 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 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 329 other orgs in OH with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 15 points below the peer median (15 vs. 30).

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. Stabilize program expenses or grow earned-income revenue to break the consecutive-deficit pattern (~8 points to financial score).

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