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
43
Score
Governance
58
Score
Financial
20
Score
Program
60
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
2023 Hidden Hidden 3.0% 43 Fragile Recovery
2022 Hidden Hidden 40 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 48 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 50 Fragile Recovery
2019 40 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 40 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 40 Fragile Recovery
2016 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 32 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 38 Fragile Recovery
2013 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 40 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 40 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
NORA CAREY EXECUTIVE DI Hidden
WILLIAM TEMPLETON Board Member
LINDA DERUVO-KEEGAN Board President
WILLIAM HARPIN Board Member
DENNIS CORCORAN Treasurer
PAUL LAMBERT Board Member
JOHN YUNTIS JR Secretary
KATHRYN H DUNFORD Board Member
LAURA TOY Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
NORA CAREY EXECUTIVE DI Hidden
WILLIAM TEMPLETON Board President
LINDA DERUVO-KEEGAN VICE PRESIDE
ROBERT BURNS VICE PRESIDE
DENNIS CORCORAN Treasurer
KIRSTEN WICKSON Secretary
PAUL LAMBERT Board Member
JOHN YUNITS JR Board Member
WILLIAM HARPIN Board Member
LESLIE GARDNER Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
20 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
58 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
43 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 9 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A5.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 29 points below the peer median (20 vs. 49).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 40 → 43 over 5 years (improving by 3 points).

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.