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
42
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
45
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
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
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 Hidden Hidden 42 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2022 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 40 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 44 Fragile Recovery
2018 51 Fragile Recovery
2017 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 45 Fragile Recovery
2015 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 61 Stable Stable Watch
2013 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 55 Fragile Recovery
2011 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LOUIS AUXENFAS Treasurer
LOUIS AUXENFAS Secretary
VERONICA LI Board President

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CALEB SHI Board President
NICHOLAS LEE Treasurer
CAMDEN ARCHAMBEAU Board President

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER WANG Board President
AUSTIN KWOUN Treasurer
AMELIA COSSENTINO Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER WANG Board President
AUSTIN KWOUN FINANCIAL MANAGER
ODESSA DENG Secretary
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
45 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
42 / 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: program score sits 14 points below the peer median (15 vs. 29).

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

No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.