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
26
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
10
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2024 Hidden Hidden 26 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2023 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 26 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 40 Fragile Recovery
2020 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 41 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Richard W Chick Treasurer
Kathleen Chick Board President
Jennifer Chiapella Secretary
Amanda Ferreira Board Member
Sharon Trott-Reid Board Member
Sarah Jaffer Board President

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Richard Chick Board President
James Dolham Board President
Kathleen Chick Treasurer
Jennifer Chiapella Secretary
Sharon Trott-Reid Board Member
Sarah Jaffer Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Richard Chick Board President
James Dolham Board President
Kathleen Chick Treasurer
Jennifer Chiapella Secretary
Sharon Trott-Reid Board Member
Sarah Jaffer Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
10 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
26 / 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: financial score sits 32 points below the peer median (10 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.