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
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Steady State ↓
Overall
31
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
45
Score
Title
-
Institutions
-
Avg Revenue
-
Risk Profile
Representative Institutions
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 | Hidden | Hidden | 20.9% | 31 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2022 | — | — | 37.0% | 30 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2021 | — | — | 29.3% | 40 | Governance-Stressed | Recovery | |
| 2020 | — | — | 24.1% | 35 | Fragile | Gov Risk | |
| 2019 | — | — | 19.2% | 35 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2018 | — | — | 19.9% | 33 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2017 | — | — | 20.1% | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2016 | — | — | 20.2% | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2015 | — | — | 20.4% | 25 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2014 | — | — | 18.3% | 28 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2013 | — | — | 20.1% | 22 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2012 | — | — | 15.5% | 35 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2011 | — | — | 15.4% | 27 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2025
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marcie Van Cleave | Executive Director | 20.9% of Rev | ||
| Carolyn Ramm | Board President | — | ||
| James Madigan | Board President | — | ||
| Carl Lazarus | Treasurer | — | ||
| Almas Dossa | Secretary | — | ||
| Barbara Merson | Board Member | — | ||
| David Salstein | Board Member | — | ||
| Ron Wilkinson | Board Member | — | ||
| Siu-Ching Lui | Board Member | — | ||
| Sue Rose | Board Member | — | ||
| Yaron Shragai | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marcie Van Cleave | Executive Director | 20.7% of Rev | ||
| David Salstein | Board President | — | ||
| Carl Lazarus | Treasurer | — | ||
| Elizabeth MacLachlan | Board President | — | ||
| Carolyn Ramm | Secretary | — | ||
| Almas Dossa | Board Member | — | ||
| Lauren Ingram | Board Member | — | ||
| Siu-Ching Lui | Board Member | — | ||
| Sue Rose | Board Member | — | ||
| Yaron Shragai | Board Member | — | ||
| Ron Wilkinson | Board Member | — | ||
| James Madigan | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2022
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marcie Van Cleave | Executive Director | 19.0% of Rev | ||
| Yaron Shragai | Board Member | — | ||
| Lauren Ingram | Board Member | — | ||
| Harsh Singh | Board Member | — | ||
| James Madigan | Board Member | — | ||
| Kathleen Hagelston | Board Member | — | ||
| Carl Lazarus | Treasurer | — | ||
| Elizabeth MacLachlan | Board President | — | ||
| Carolyn Ramm | Secretary | — | ||
| David Salstein | Board President | — |
Tax year 2021
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marcie Van Cleave | Executive Director | 18.9% of Rev | ||
| Kathleen Hagelston | Board Member | — | ||
| Carl Lazarus | Treasurer | — | ||
| Elizabeth MacLachlan | Board President | — | ||
| James Madigan | Board Member | — | ||
| Carolyn Ramm | Secretary | — | ||
| David Salstein | Board President | — | ||
| Yaron Shragai | Board Member | — | ||
| Lauren Ingram | Board Member | — | ||
| Harsh Singh | Board Member | — |
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown
Score breakdown
Financial resilience
15 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
31 / 100
Priority Review
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 222 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A2.
Most-divergent component: financial score sits 54 points below the peer median (15 vs. 69).
5-year trend: Steady State
No extreme longitudinal divergence detected. The organization is maintaining its current operational philosophy.
What's driving this score
- Comp-to-revenue ratio of 20.9% sits within the sector's healthy band (18–22%).
- Financial resilience score in the bottom quartile — reserves and liabilities ratios warrant review.
What would change this score
The two changes that would most improve this score:
- Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
- 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.