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
35
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 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2023 49 Fragile Recovery
2022 8.2% 49 Fragile Recovery
2021 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 50 Fragile Recovery
2019 37 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2018 37 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2017 37 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2016 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2015 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 37 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2013 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2012 41 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ELLEN SINOPOLI Board Member 5.4% of Rev
NANCY ROSENBLUM VICE PRESIDE
TERESA JOHNSON Board President
MONIQUE SOFEN Treasurer
HOLLIS DORMAN Board Member
SANDRA ROUSE Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ELLEN SINOPOLI Board Member
GAIL GOODMAN SNITKOFF Board Member
NANCY ROSENBLUM Board President
WILLIAM FARAGON Treasurer
SANDRA EBEJER VICE-PRESIDE
MAUREEN NEUFELD Board Member
TERESA JOHNSON Board Member
MONIQUE SOFEN Board Member
ELIZABETH TIMONEY Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
35 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 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 699 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 16 points above the peer median (45 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 50 → 43 over 5 years (declining by 7 points).

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.