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
25
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2023 Hidden Hidden 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2022 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 28 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2020 0.9% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2019 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PHILIP SHNEIDMAN Board President
MICHAEL FREEDMAN Treasurer
IVANA MESTROVIC Board Member
STEVEN HENRY Board Member
PETER TEAR Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PHILIP SHNEIDMAN Board President 0.6% of Rev
MICHAEL FREEDMAN Treasurer
IVANA MESTROVIC Board Member
STEVEN HENRY Board Member
PETER TEAR Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PHILIP SHNEIDMAN Board President
IVANA MESTROVIC Treasurer
STEVEN HENRY Board Member
MICHAEL FREEDMAN Treasurer
PETER TEAR Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
0 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
25 / 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: financial score sits 31 points below the peer median (0 vs. 31).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 32 → 25 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.