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
29
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2023 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 42 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2021 46 Fragile Recovery
2020 44 Financially Distressed Recovery
2019 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 49 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 49 Fragile Recovery
2016 39 Financially Distressed Recovery
2015 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LAURA JEFFERS Board President
HEATHER HALL Secretary
LISA KAMPF LOPEZ Treasurer
NANCY MENT Board Member
DANIEL FISHBANE Board Member
TORRINO HARVEY Board Member
CRAIG ELLIOT Board Member
LISA KAMPF LOPEZ Board President
HEATHER HALL Secretary
DANIEL FISHBANE Treasurer
NANCY MENT Board Member
LAURA JEFFERS Board President
TORRINO HARVEY Board Member
CRAIG ELLIOT Board Member
NICOLE BECKER Executive Dir.

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LISA KAMPF LOPEZ Board President
HEATHER HALL Secretary
DANIEL FISHBANE Treasurer
NANCY MENT Board Member
TORRINO HARVEY 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
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
29 / 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 44 → 29 over 5 years (declining by 15 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. 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.