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
41
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
50
Score
Program
15
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 — — — 41 Fragile Recovery
2023 — — — 41 Fragile Recovery
2022 — — — 36 Financially Distressed Recovery
2020 — — — 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2019 — — — 47 Fragile Recovery
2018 — — — 39 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2017 — — — 47 Fragile Recovery
2016 — — — 39 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2015 — — — 39 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 — — — 43 Fragile Recovery
2013 — — — 39 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2012 — — — 39 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Kara Dean Board President —
Lisa Blumsack Board President —
Elizabeth Handler Secretary —
Marie Hurd Treasurer —
Frank Walley Board Member —
Christine Writer Board Member —
Gloria Lee Board Member —
Tony Santos Board Member —
Helen Shedden Board Member —
Cynthia Arcate Directpr —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
50 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
41 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 377 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 47 → 41 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.