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
28
Score
Governance
58
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 3.8% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2023 — — — 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 — — 1.2% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 — — — 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Morgan Fitzpatrick Board Member 2.0% of Rev
Sandy Clancy Board Member 1.8% of Rev
John Wayland Somers Artistic Director —
Lydia Cochran Artistic Director —
David Plante Secretary —
Kim Dexter Board Member —
Aya Khoury Board Member —
Rob Klimeczko Board Member —
Elijah Lidonde Board Member —
Megan Lummus Board Member —
Johnny Esposito Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
David Plante Board Member 2.1% of Rev
Aya Khoury Board Member —
Rob Klimeczko Board President —
John Wayland Somers Artistic Director —
Kim Dexter Secretary —
Lydia Cochran Artistic Director —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Rob Klimeczko Board President —
John Wayland Somers Artistic Director —
Kim Dexter Secretary —
Todd Vickstrom Artistic Director —
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
58 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
28 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 39 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A1.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 49 points below the peer median (15 vs. 64).

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. 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.