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
45
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 — 45 Fragile Recovery
2022 — — — 40 Financially Distressed Recovery
2021 — — — 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2020 — — — 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 — — — 45 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 — — — 45 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2016 — — — 45 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
William Remmers Board President —
Marc Shepherd Board President —
Matthew Hughes Treasurer —
Rick Agster Secretary —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
William Remmers Board President —
Eric Lamp Board President —
Matthew Walsh Board Member —
Tami Swartz Treasurer —
Matthew Hughes Treasurer —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
William Remmers Board President —
Eric Lamp Board President —
Matthew Walsh Board Member —
Tami Swartz Treasurer —
Adam Klein Treasurer —
Matthew Hughes Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
65 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
45 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 1,226 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 24 points below the peer median (5 vs. 29).

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.