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
33
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
10
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 38 Financially Distressed Recovery
2021 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 48 Fragile Recovery
2019 59 Fragile Recovery
2018 57 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 63 Stable Stable Watch
2016 61 Stable Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CHRISTOPHER BELMONTE Board President
JOSHUA GOLDMAN Treasurer
CHRISTOPHER MCINERNEY Board Member
EMILY LICHTER Board Member
FRANCIA WISNEWSKI Board Member
SUZANNE LAMONTO Board Member
ANN MARY CLOUTIER Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CHRISTOPHER BELMONTE Board President
JOSHUA GOLDMAN Treasurer
CHRISTOPHER MCINERNEY Board Member
EMILY LICHTER Board Member
FRANCIA WISNEWSKI Board Member
SUSAN LAMONTO Board Member
ANN MARY CLOUTIER Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CHRIS BELMONTE Board President
JOSHUA GOLDMAN Treasurer
DAVID SINGER Secretary
DAVID SHARKEN Board Member
CHRISTOPHER MCINERNEY Board Member
SUSAN LAMONTO Board Member
EMILY LICHTER Board Member
FRANCIA WISNEWSKI 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
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
33 / 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.