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
32
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
60
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2023 Hidden Hidden 16.5% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 2.5% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 11.5% 39 Fragile Recovery
2020 38 Financially Distressed Recovery
2019 51 Fragile Recovery
2018 51 Fragile Recovery
2017 47 Fragile Recovery
2016 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Igor Golyak Artistic Director 15.5% of Rev
Rimma Gluzman Board President
Alex Kesler Board President
Viktoriya Kovalenko Treasurer
Jennifer Clark Secretary
Marianna Golyak Board Member
Alex Petetsky Board Member
Robin J Hanley Board Member
Gene Ravvin Board Member
Victoria Glazomitsky McKay Board Member
Meghan Coleman Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Rimma Gluzman Board President
Alex Kesler Board President
Viktoriya Kovalenko Treasurer
Jennifer Clark Secretary
Mariana Golyak Board Member
Robin J Hanley Board Member
Igor Golyak Artistic Director
Meghan Coleman Board Member
Gene Ravvin Board Member
Alex Petersky Board Member
Voctoria Glazomitsky Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
15 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
32 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 245 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 31 points above the peer median (60 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 51 → 32 over 5 years (declining by 19 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. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
  2. 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.