Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
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
48
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
60
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
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2024 Hidden Hidden 14.2% 48 Fragile Decline Risk
2023 52 Fragile Stable Watch
2021 49 Fragile Recovery
2020 45 Fragile Stable Watch
2019 48 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 52 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 52 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 49 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 49 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 56 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 56 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 56 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 56 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SUZANNE LIO Executive Director Hidden
STUART ADELBERG CHARIMAN
LENORE DE CSEPEL VICE CHAIRMAN
FREDERICK WU Treasurer
JUDY SOTO Secretary
JOSEPH WILLIAMSON JR OPERATIONS
LESLIE TARKINGTON GOVERNANCE
ERIN FLYNN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PETER J TESEI Board President
LENORE DE CSEPEL Board President
FREDERICK WU Treasurer
JUDY SOTO Secretary
JANICE B RIDDELL CORPORATE FUNDING
JOSEPH WILLIAMSON JR OPERATIONS
ANITA O'SULLIVAN PUBLICITY
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
48 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 130 other orgs in CT with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 32 points above the peer median (60 vs. 28).

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

No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.

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