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
47
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
50
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 23.9% 47 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2022 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2021 27.3% 44 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2020 13.1% 47 Fragile Gov Risk
2019 7.7% 47 Fragile Recovery
2018 45.9% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2017 6.5% 45 Fragile Recovery
2016 15.3% 39 Fragile Recovery
2015 5.3% 36 Financially Distressed Recovery
2014 6.1% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 11.8% 49 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 8.6% 50 Fragile Recovery
2011 61 Stable Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Mary Carol Dearing Board President
Jeanne Fornes Treasurer
Mike Baronich Secretary
Jonathan Horton Board Member
Marilyn Heary Board Member
Mark Stevens Board Member
Debbie Ehrig Board Member
Katherine Gaines Board Member
Martin Timm Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Martin Timm Board President
Mary Carol Dearing Board President
Jeanne Fornes Treasurer
Mike Baronich Secretary
Jonathan Horton Board Member
Marilyn Heary Board Member
Mark Stevens Board Member
Debbie Ehrig Board Member
Katherine Gaines Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
50 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
47 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 699 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 31 points above the peer median (60 vs. 29).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 47 → 47 over 5 years (stable by 0 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
  2. Reduce top-officer compensation from 23.9% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~5 points.

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