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
34
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
5
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Steady State

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2023 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2022 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 52 Fragile Recovery
2020 51 Fragile Recovery
2019 34 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 42 Fragile Recovery
2016 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 38 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 52 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MARK S FRANK Board President
WILLIAM E STRICKLAND JR Board President
MAARTEN D HEMSLEY Treasurer
AARON BISNO Board Member
MEYER GRINBERG Board Member
BRUCE JONES Board Member
NANCY RACKOFF Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
WILLIAM E STRICKLAND JR Board President
MARK S FRANK Board President
MEYER GRINBERG Board Member
BRUCE JONES Board Member
NANCY RACKOFF Board Member
MAARTEN D HEMSLEY Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
5 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
34 / 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: financial score sits 37 points below the peer median (5 vs. 42).

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

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.