Institutional Maturation
Institutional Maturation
Institutional Maturation Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
Trajectory Thumbprint

Institutional Maturation

"A comprehensive multi-disciplinary arts center offering education, performance, and exhibition, uniquely providing the area's only art-based afterschool program and extensive outreach to underserved Title One schools."

— Statement of Program Service Accomplishments

What does this mean?

The gold standard. 10-year slow, steady, concurrent growth across Financial Health, Governance, and Program. Leadership is scaling their oversight and impact in lockstep.

The Path Forward

The Crown

A mandate to lead the sector. It encourages the organization to mentor emerging nonprofits and embark on generational capital projects, leveraging their profound stability.

The Crown
The Crown

Demonstrated Impact

  • 6 teaching artists per school year
  • maximum of 65 young artists in grades K-5
  • 7 full time scholarships
  • 1800 youth
  • 4 Title One schools
  • 10 arts integration residencies
  • over 1200 underserved children
  • 18 teachers and teaching artists
  • 2 galleries
  • hundreds of visitors
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Institutional Maturation ↑
Overall
49
Score
Governance
58
Score
Financial
35
Score
Program
60
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Institutional Maturation

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 — — 4.3% 49 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 Hidden Hidden 4.3% 49 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 — — 5.4% 52 Fragile Recovery
2020 — — 8.7% 50 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — 2.7% 47 Fragile Recovery
2018 — — 5.2% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 — — 5.9% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 — — 5.1% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 — — 4.0% 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2014 — — 3.6% 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2013 — — 4.3% 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2012 — — 0.8% 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2011 — — 4.6% 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
WENDY SMITH Executive Director 3.8% of Rev
JACKIE TANNER Board President —
BECKY WOODRUFF Board Member —
HATHAWAY PENDERGRASS Treasurer —
ELLEN MEDEARIS Board Member —
MICHELLE BOLAS Board Member —
RIZA JENKINS Board Member —
EMILY EVENS Secretary —
KAMAL JAMES Board Member —
HELEN KALISHER Board Member —
REBECCA MOORE Board Member —
JOHANNA FOSTER Board President —
MARK KLEINSCHMIDT Board Member —
BERNADETTE PELISSIER Board Member —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Daniel Mayer Executive Director 3.7% of Rev
Daniel Mayer Executive Director 3.5% of Rev
Jean Hamilton Board Member —
Ellen Medearis Board Member —
Mary Carter Taub Board Member —
Michael Parker Board Member —
Hathaway Pendergrass Board Member —
Jackie Tanner Board Member —
Michael Frisch Board President —
Bernadette Pelissier Board President —
Arthur Bolick Secretary —
Charlotte Walton Treasurer —
Bruce Runberg Board Member —
Jean Hamilton Board Member —
Ellen Medearis Board Member —
Mary Carter Taub Board Member —
Michael Parker Board Member —
Hathaway Pendergrass Board Member —
Jackie Tanner Board Member —
Johanna Foster Board Member —
Wendy Smith Board Member —
Keta Barnes Board Member —
Michael Frisch Board President —
Bernadette Pelissier Board President —
Arthur Bolick Secretary —
Charlotte Walton Treasurer —
Dan Krebill Board Member —
Bruce Runberg Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
35 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
58 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 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 144 other orgs in NC with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 32 points below the peer median (35 vs. 67).

5-year trend: Institutional Maturation

The gold standard. 10-year slow, steady, concurrent growth across Financial Health, Governance, and Program. Leadership is scaling their oversight and impact in lockstep.

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.