Insufficient Data
At least 3 years of filing history are required to project a trajectory.
Insufficient Data
Market
Archetype
Mechanical
Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint
Insufficient Data
What does this mean?
Not enough historical data to determine a longitudinal pattern.
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Insufficient Data ↓
Overall
23
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
10
Score
Program
5
Score
Title
-
Institutions
-
Avg Revenue
-
Risk Profile
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Insufficient Data
Historical Performance
| Year | Revenue | Top Comp | Comp % Rev | Score | Phase Label | Outlook | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Hidden | Hidden | — | — | Unknown | — | |
| 2023 | Hidden | Hidden | — | 23 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2022 | — | — | — | 50 | Fragile | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2025
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARY WOLFRAM | CHAIRMAN | — | ||
| PAMELA THOMAS | VICE CHAIRMAN | — | ||
| MARGARET YOUNGS | Treasurer | — | ||
| SHELLY OTT | Secretary | — | ||
| CALVIN STOCKDALE | Board Member | — | ||
| NATHAN LEHMAN | Board Member | — | ||
| SHANE SPAHR | Board Member | — | ||
| BRYAN SPRINGER | Board Member | — | ||
| AIDAN SULLIVAN | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARGARET YOUNGS | Board President | — | ||
| RONALD SCHOLL | Treasurer | — | ||
| NATHAN LEHMAN | Secretary | — | ||
| MARY BERTAKIS | Board Member | — | ||
| CALVIN STOCKDALE | Board Member | — | ||
| JAN OURENSMA | Board Member | — | ||
| PAMELA THOMAS | Board Member | — | ||
| CONNIE SEXTON | Board Member | — | ||
| SHELLY OTT | Board Member | — |
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown
Score breakdown
Financial resilience
10 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
23 / 100
Priority Review
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 4 other orgs in MI with NTEE prefix A8.
Most-divergent component: program score sits 44 points below the peer median (5 vs. 49).
5-year trend: Insufficient Data
Not enough historical data to determine a longitudinal pattern.
What's driving this score
- All-volunteer org with no paid officers — governance signal is neutral (default 50), not absent.
- Financial resilience score in the bottom quartile — reserves and liabilities ratios warrant review.
What would change this score
The two changes that would most improve this score:
- 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.