Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
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
49
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Steady State

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2024 Hidden Hidden 21.5% 49 Fragile Gov Risk
2023 47 Fragile Recovery
2022 17.5% 46 Fragile Recovery
2018 19 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Amanda Gundling Executive Director 12.0% of Rev
Andrea Fagon non-voting Board Member 9.5% of Rev
Nikki Hahn Board President
Amanda O'Neill Treasurer
Justin O'Leary Board President
Gregory Kimble Board Member
Elizabeth Clain Board Member
Isper Crissey Secretary

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Amanda Gundling Executive Director 4.1% of Rev
Erica Kelly non-voting Board Member 3.7% of Rev
Audrey Decker Board Member
Nikki Hahn Board President
Amanda O'Neill Treasurer
Justin O'Leary Board President
Cara Bernard Board Member
Elizabeth Clain Board Member
Brenda Price Board Member
Isper Crissey Secretary
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
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
49 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 700 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. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
  2. 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.