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
58
Score
Financial
50
Score
Program
60
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 — — 4.1% 54 Fragile Recovery
2022 — — 9.8% 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2021 — — 2.5% 52 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JEREMY THOMAS Board Member 8.2% of Rev
GREG SHAYA Board President —
CAMERON MANEESE Board President —
SUZANNE HUSE Secretary —
CATHY ROCHE Treasurer —
MATTHEW CAMPBELL Treasurer —
SANDRA HULL Board Member —
CHRISTOPHER BUCHANAN Board Member —
JEFF SMITH Board Member —
LAURA NEILL Board Member —
RODNEY MITCHELL Board Member —
GUINEVERE STEENSON Board Member —
RON HOLTMAN Board Member —
KIM SEAMAN Vice President —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CAROLYN ROBINSON Executive Director 1.7% of Rev
GREG SHAYA Board President —
KIM SEAMAN Board President —
SUZANNE HUSE Secretary —
JOHN COOK Treasurer —
MATTHEW CAMPBELL Board Member —
CAMERON MANEESE Board Member —
SANDRA HULL Board Member —
CYNTHIA PALMER Board Member —
CHRISTOPHER BUCHANAN Board Member —
JEFF SMITH Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
50 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
58 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 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 329 other orgs in OH with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 30 points above the peer median (60 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.