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
41
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 Hidden Hidden — 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 — — — 44 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — — 34 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2020 — — — 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 — — — 30 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
GREGORY BELNAP Board Member —
ANNE SCHWAB Board President —
TREY PATERSON Board President —
JAY WILSON Secretary —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
GREGORY BELNAP Board Member —
ANNE SCHWAB Board President —
TREY PATERSON Board Member —
JAY WILSON Secretary —
GINGER NELSON VICE-PRESIDE —
ANITRA COTTRELL Board Member —
GREGORY BELNAP Board Member —
ANNE SCHWAB Board President —
TREY PATERSON VICE PRESIDE —
JAY WILSON Secretary —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ANNE S SCHWAB Board President —
GINGER NELSON Board President —
JAY WILSON Secretary —
TREY PATTERSON Board Member —
ANITRA COTTRELL Board Member —
SCOTT LOCKHART Board Member —
ANNE S SCHWAB Board President —
GINGER NELSON Board President —
JAY WILSON Secretary —
TREY PATTERSON Board Member —
ANITRA COTTRELL Board Member —
SCOTT LOCKHART Board Member —
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
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
41 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 114 other orgs in UT with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 25 points below the peer median (5 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

No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.

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