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
35
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
15
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
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 29.0% 35 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2022 31.2% 44 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2021 51 Fragile Recovery
2020 18.7% 46 Fragile Decline Risk
2019 49 Fragile Recovery
2018 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 51 Fragile Recovery
2016 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 51 Fragile Recovery
2013 43 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2012 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JESSICA VALIENTE Executive Director 29.0% of Rev
TESSA COYLE Board President
ED MAGUIRE Treasurer
ANNA BOURNE Secretary
TINU JOSEPH Board Member
KATHLEEN LOMAX Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JESSICA VALIENTE Executive Director 29.6% of Rev
TESSA COYLE Board President
ED MAGUIRE Treasurer
ANNA BOURNE Secretary
TINU JOSEPH Board Member
KATHLEEN LOMAX Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JESSICA VALIENTE Executive Director 20.0% of Rev
TESSA COYLE Board President
JAMES HUBERTUS Treasurer
HARRIET RAGHNAL Secretary
MARTA LUCIA VARGAS Board Member
KAREN RUTBERG Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
55 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
35 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 176 other orgs in NJ with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 21 points above the peer median (55 vs. 34).

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. Reduce top-officer compensation from 29.0% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~14 points.
  2. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).

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