Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Stable
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
57
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
90
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
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 — — — 57 Fragile Decline Risk
2023 Hidden Hidden — 65 Stable Stable Watch
2022 — — — 43 Fragile Stable Watch
2021 — — — 41 Fragile Recovery
2020 — — — 37 Fragile Stable Watch
2019 — — — 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 — — — 41 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 — — — 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 — — — 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 — — — 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 — — — 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 — — — 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 — — — 41 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Samatha Gould Board President —
David Cass Board President —
Gregg Savage Treasurer —
Dawn Gomez Secretary —
Barbara Esterbrook Officer At Large —
Amanda Duggan Board Member —
Beth Petr Board Member —
Brian Casey Board Member —
Chris Delise Board Member —
Elaina Kourepenos Board Member —
Janice Smith Board Member —
Jenette Kollmann Board Member —
Jill Blumenthal Shaya Board Member —
Nancy Depew Board Member —
Nancy Duggan Board Member —
Stephanie Henry Board Member —
Terri Carotenuto Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
90 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
57 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 376 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 35 points above the peer median (90 vs. 55).

5-year trend: Steady State

No extreme longitudinal divergence detected. The organization is maintaining its current operational philosophy.

Overall score has gone from 37 → 57 over 5 years (improving by 20 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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.