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
44
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Steady State

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2022 44 Fragile Recovery
2021 37 Fragile Recovery
2020 36 Fragile Recovery
2019 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CATHY JOHNSON Board President
TODD TICKNER VICE PRESIDE
MARK HEULITT Treasurer
CALEB HEULITT Secretary
LAURA COMSTOCK GENERAL MANA
ERIC UMALI Board Member
JOHN COMSTOCK Board Member
LAUREN MOORE Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CATHY BECKSTEAD Board President
TODD TICKNER VICE PRESIDE
ADRIENNE FREELAND Secretary
MARK HEULITT Treasurer
DEAN JOHNSON Artistic Director
R SHANE BINGHAM GENERAL MANA
LAURA COMSTOCK Board Member
CALEB HEULITT Board Member
LIBBY BAUMGARTNER Board Member
NIKKI DOSSMAN Board Member
ERIC R UMALI Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
55 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
44 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 829 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 27 points below the peer median (5 vs. 32).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 33 → 44 over 5 years (improving by 11 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. 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.