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
34
Score
Governance
55
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
60
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 8.4% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2022 2.3% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 40 Financially Distressed Recovery
2019 56.0% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Alexander A Stylos Board President 8.4% of Rev

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Alexander A Stylos Board Member 1.4% of Rev
Nicholar R Stylos Board President
Kathy Argella Treasurer
Alexander A Stylos Board Member
Nicholar R Stylos Board President
Kathy Argella Treasurer

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
NICHOLAS R STYLOS Board President
KATHY ARGELLA Treasurer
ESTELE C BORGES Secretary
ALEXANDER A STYLOS Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ALEXANDER A STYLOS Secretary 4.6% of Rev
KATHY ARGELLA Treasurer
NICHOLAS R STYLOS Board President
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
55 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
34 / 100
Priority Review

The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →

Peer comparison

Compared to 54 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 35 points below the peer median (0 vs. 35).

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.