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 699 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 34 points above the peer median (65 vs. 31).

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.