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
43
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
15
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 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2022 45 Fragile Recovery
2021 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2020 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2019 49 Fragile Recovery
2018 43 Fragile Recovery
2017 39 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 47 Fragile Recovery
2015 43 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 41 Fragile Recovery
2013 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2012 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2011 45 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LOUIS PROSPERI Board Member
JOANN KONI Board President
CHRISTINE MURRAY Treasurer
TONI MCGEE Secretary
LIZ MACDONALD Board Member
THOMAS BANKERT Board Member
MARCI SEIDMAN Board Member
STEVE TULLOCH Board Member
NICOLE JACOB Board Member
JEN DECOURCY Board Member
LYNN GODDARD Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
THOMAS BANKERT Board Member
KRISTINE MARTONE-LEVINE Board Member
BRIAN LEVINE Board Member
ALAN ZALL Board Member
JEN DECOURCY Board Member
LYNN GODDARD Board Member
KARINA ZALL Board Member
LOUIS PROSPERI Board President
CHRISTINE MURRAY Treasurer
EILEEN DOHERTY Secretary
MARIE 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
55 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
43 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 246 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 14 points below the peer median (15 vs. 29).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 49 → 43 over 5 years (declining by 6 points).

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.