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
35
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
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 11.6% 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 22.6% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 26.0% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2020 23.7% 45 Fragile Gov Risk
2019 55 Fragile Recovery
2018 53 Fragile Recovery
2017 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 59 Fragile Recovery
2015 57 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 57 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 57 Fragile Recovery
2011 53 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
BRANDI ENGEMAN Executive Director 12.4% of Rev
CATHERINE OZMENT Board President
ANTONYA SANDERS Board President
VANESSA FEAGINS Secretary
MELISSA MACKEY Treasurer
STEVE BUBLITZ Board Member
GRANT HARDING Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MARLANE HAMILTON Executive Director 1.9% of Rev
CHRISTINE MONTEITH Executive Director 1.6% of Rev
JENNIFER BEST Board Member
CINDY HARVEY Board Member
SAMUEL BUELOW Board Member
JEREMIAH SETH DUSTIN Board Member
JOCELYN WARNER Board President
STEVE BUBLITZ Board President
ALISON TICKNOR Secretary
JOANNE KOZUCHOWSKI Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
15 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
35 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 52 other orgs in NM with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 29 points below the peer median (15 vs. 44).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 55 → 35 over 5 years (declining by 20 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. 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.