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
33
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
60
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 37 Fragile Recovery
2021 34.1% 37 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2020 17.5% 37 Fragile Recovery
2019 22.1% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ISAAC WINOKUR Board Member 4.7% of Rev
JENNIFER CHEN Board Member 3.2% of Rev
MATTHEW AUCOIN Board Member 1.7% of Rev
KATHY SCHUMAN Board President
MARTA MILLER Board President
MATTHEW BIRD Treasurer
ADAM CHARLAP HYMAN Secretary
STEPHEN NOVICK Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ISAAC WINOKUR Board Member 3.2% of Rev
JENNIFER CHEN Board Member 2.9% of Rev
MATTHEW AUCOIN Board Member 0.7% of Rev
KATHY SCHUMAN Board President
MARTA MILLER Board President
MATTHEW BIRD Treasurer
ADAM CHARLAP HYMAN Secretary
STEPHEN NOVICK Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JENNIFER CHEN Board Member 3.4% of Rev
ISAAC WINOKUR Board Member 3.2% of Rev
MATTHEW AUCOIN Board Member 1.5% of Rev
STEPHEN NOVICK Board Member
KATHY SCHUMAN Board President
MARTA MILLER Board President
MATTHEW BIRD Treasurer
ADAM CHARLAP HYMAN Secretary
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
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
33 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 245 other orgs in MA 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 33 → 33 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. 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.