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
32
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2023 Hidden Hidden 27.4% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2022 28.1% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 39.7% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 37.7% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2019 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 49 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SARAH SULLIVAN Artistic Director 8.7% of Rev
JULIO-CESAR SAUCEDA Artistic Director 7.8% of Rev
XANTHIA WALKER Artistic Director 7.8% of Rev
TAMIKA LAMB SANDERS Board President
JESSICA GONZALEZ Board President
JULIA BALFSZI Treasurer
VIOLETA RAMOS Secretary
MICHELLE SAMBRANO Board Member
JOHNNY CASTRO Board Member
MAYA BLANCO Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Julio-Cesar Sauceda Artistic Director 9.9% of Rev
Xanthia Walker Artistic Director 7.7% of Rev
Sarah Sullivan Artistic Director 7.3% of Rev
Lynn Hoffman Treasurer
Violeta Ramos Secretary
Cherie Bond Board President
Peggy Fullenkamp Oomens Board Member
Maya Blanco Board Member
Tamika Lamb Sanders Board President
Jessica Gonzalez Board President
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
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
32 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 118 other orgs in AZ with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 16 points below the peer median (15 vs. 31).

5-year trend: Steady State

No extreme longitudinal divergence detected. The organization is maintaining its current operational philosophy.

Overall score has gone from 55 → 32 over 5 years (declining by 23 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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. Reduce top-officer compensation from 27.4% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~11 points.

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.