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
49
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
70
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2025 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2024 — — — 49 Fragile Recovery
2023 — — — 47 Fragile Recovery
2022 — — — 39 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 — — — 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 — — — 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2019 — — — 47 Fragile Recovery
2018 — — — 37 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Julia McGuirk Board President —
Andrew Murachver Treasurer —
Greg Gordon Board Member —
Amy Lampert Board Member —
Lauren Landry Board Member —
Marc Pasciucco Board Member —
Nicole Wendl Board Member —
Lauren Landry Board Member —
Jacob Slater Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Julia McGuirk Board President —
Andrew Murachver Treasurer —
Kristi Faby Board Member —
Greg Gordon Board Member —
Amy Lampert Board Member —
Lauren Landry Board Member —
Carol Louik Board Member —
Marc Pasciucco Board Member —
Nicole Wendl Board Member —
Julia McGuirk Board President —
Andrew Murachver Treasurer —
Kristi Faby Board Member —
Greg Gordon Board Member —
Amy Lampert Board Member —
Lauren Landry Board Member —
Carol Louik Board Member —
Marc Pasciucco Board Member —
Nicole Wendl Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
70 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
49 / 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 15 points above the peer median (70 vs. 55).

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. Stabilize program expenses or grow earned-income revenue to break the consecutive-deficit pattern (~8 points to financial score).

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