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
45
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 45 Fragile Recovery
2023 39 Fragile Recovery
2022 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 45 Fragile Recovery
2018 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2016 41 Fragile Recovery
2015 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Fran Onne-Fong Board President
Stephen Stanczyk Board President
Kathleen R OConnell Treasurer
Non Rothschild Cooper Secretary
Wilhelmina Eaken Board Member
Charles Fournier Board Member
Julie Layton Board Member
Nancy Rosenfeld Board Member
Cynthia Stuart Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Richard Yaeger Board President
Bonnie Hiller Board President
Kathleen R OConnell Treasurer
Non Rothschild Cooper Secretary
Nancy Rosenfeld Board Member
Wilhelmina Eaken Board Member
Charles Fournier Board Member
Fran Onne-Fong Board Member
Alan Tung Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
65 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
45 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 699 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 34 points above the peer median (65 vs. 31).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 31 → 45 over 5 years (improving by 14 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. Stabilize program expenses or grow earned-income revenue to break the consecutive-deficit pattern (~8 points to financial score).

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.