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
26
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
30
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Steady State

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2022 11.9% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 32 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 7.0% 36 Fragile Recovery
2019 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CAITLIN BODY Board Member 4.5% of Rev
DENISE HOEFLICH Board President 3.7% of Rev
TED JAMES Board President 3.7% of Rev
JULIE LEVINE Secretary
LESA RIZZOLO Treasurer
JANE FORESTER Board Member
FELICE ROSE Board Member
ROBERT SALAZAR Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DENISE HOEFLICH Board President
TED JAMES Board President
JULIE LEVINE Secretary
LESA RIZZOLO Treasurer
CAITLIN BODY Board Member
JANE FORESTER Board Member
FELICE ROSE Board Member
ROBERT SALAZAR Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CAITLIN BODY Board Member 1.7% of Rev
TED JAMES Board President 1.4% of Rev
DENISE HOEFLICH Board President 1.4% of Rev
ROBERT SALAZAR Board Member 0.9% of Rev
JANE FORESTER Board Member
FELICE ROSE Board Member
LESA RIZZOLO Treasurer
JULIE LEVINE Secretary
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
30 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
26 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 195 other orgs in IL with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 27 points below the peer median (5 vs. 32).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 29 → 26 over 5 years (declining by 3 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. 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.