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
34
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
25
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 | 25.9% | 34 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2022 | — | — | 27.4% | 28 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2021 | — | — | 29.5% | 37 | Governance-Stressed | Recovery | |
| 2020 | — | — | 24.0% | 35 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2019 | — | — | 22.7% | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch | |
| 2018 | — | — | — | 31 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2017 | — | — | — | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch | |
| 2016 | — | — | — | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch | |
| 2015 | — | — | — | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch | |
| 2014 | — | — | — | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch | |
| 2013 | — | — | — | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch | |
| 2012 | — | — | — | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch | |
| 2011 | — | — | — | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2025
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IAN THATCHER | Artistic Director | 14.0% of Rev | ||
| WENDY THOMASSON | Board Member | 11.9% of Rev | ||
| KATHERINE SWISE | Board Member | — | ||
| REAGAN LESLIE | Board Member | — | ||
| GINA MORSS-FISCHER | Board Member | — | ||
| BROOKE MARTIN | Board Member | — | ||
| VIVIAN STANDIFIRD | Board Member | — | ||
| ATHENA HERMAN | Board Member | — | ||
| ANN PIEPER | Secretary | — | ||
| INA BECRAFT | Treasurer | — | ||
| MARY ELIZABETH RASHID | Board President | — |
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WENDY THOMASSON | Executive Director | 11.0% of Rev | ||
| JORGE LAICO | Artistic Director | 9.5% of Rev | ||
| IAN THATCHER | Artistic Director | 4.0% of Rev | ||
| VIVIAN STANDIFIRD | Board Member | — | ||
| BRANDY HARRISON | Board Member | — | ||
| ATHENA HERMAN | Board President | — | ||
| SCOTT BOUSHELL | Board President | — | ||
| INA BECRAFT | Treasurer | — | ||
| ANN PIEPER | Secretary | — |
Tax year 2022
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JORGE LAICO | Artistic Director | 13.7% of Rev | ||
| WENDY THOMASSON | Executive Director | 10.5% of Rev | ||
| BRANDY HARRISON | Board Member | — | ||
| VIVIAN STANDIFIRD | Board Member | — | ||
| ATHENA HERMAN | Board President | — | ||
| SCOTT BOUSHELL | Board President | — | ||
| INA BECRAFT | Treasurer | — | ||
| ANN PIEPER | Secretary | — |
Tax year 2021
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JORGE LAICO | Artistic Director | 13.2% of Rev | ||
| WENDY THOMASSON | EXECUTIVE DI | 10.1% of Rev | ||
| SCOTT BOUSHELL | Board President | — | ||
| DR DEBORAH GARRISON | VICE PRESIDE | — | ||
| JAMI WEBSTER HALL | Board Member | — | ||
| BRANDY HARRISON | Board Member | — | ||
| ATHENA HERMAN | Board Member | — | ||
| JOSHUA JONES | Board Member | — | ||
| HEATHER MCCORD | Treasurer | — | ||
| ANN PIEPER | Secretary | — | ||
| MARY WUETHRICH | Board Member | — | ||
| INA BECRAFT | ASSISTANT TR | — |
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown
Score breakdown
Financial resilience
25 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
34 / 100
Priority Review
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 196 other orgs in IL with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: program score sits 13 points above the peer median (45 vs. 32).
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 25.9% is modestly above the sector's healthy band (18–22%) — worth monitoring.
- 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.