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

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
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2022 62 Stable Stable Watch
2021 62 Stable Stable Watch
2020 58 Fragile Recovery
2019 61 Stable Stable Watch
2018 59 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 59 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 59 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 59 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
VALERIE C STARK Board President
MARCELINE C MERRILL Treasurer
ALEKSANDRA LVIN Secretary
JONATHAN ROBERTS Board Member
YULIA POTVIN Board Member
NILLY SHILO Board Member
RANKO KONISHI-HOUSTON Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Jonathan E Roberts Board President
Nilly Shilo Board President

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Jonathan E Roberts Board President
Nilly Shilo Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Ellyses Tai Board President
Nilly Shilo Board Member
Heather Riley 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 246 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 24 points below the peer median (5 vs. 29).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

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.