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

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Steady State

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2024 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2023 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 51 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2021 40 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2020 48 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2019 51 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 51 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2017 45 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2016 45 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2015 19.0% 35 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 21.0% 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2013 16.0% 39 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2012 20.9% 39 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Brynn Burkee Unger Board President

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
BRYNN UNGER Board President
BIRGET LOEWENSTEIN VICE-PRESIDE
TOM COULTAS Treasurer
STEVE SEGNER Board Member
DAVID LEMAN Board Member
MARISA WILSON Board Member
BARBARA BREITBART Board Member
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 148 other orgs in AZ with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 26 points below the peer median (15 vs. 41).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 48 → 35 over 5 years (declining by 13 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.