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
21
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
5
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Steady State

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2021 21 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 44.4% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2019 20.1% 42 Fragile Recovery
2018 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 39 Financially Distressed Recovery
2016 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 37 Fragile Recovery
2012 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2011 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Maryanna Clarke Artistic Director 51.8% of Rev
Chris Clarke Secretary 7.8% of Rev
Susan Jakoblew Board President
Dee Gee Lester Treasurer

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Maryanna Clarke Artistic Director 28.2% of Rev
Chris Clarke Secretary 22.3% of Rev
Susan Jakoblew Board President
Dee Gee Lester Treasurer
Scott Manners Board Member
Lauren Hughes Board Member
Sharon Bailey Taylor-Carrillo Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
5 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
21 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 130 other orgs in TN with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 60 points below the peer median (5 vs. 65).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 39 → 21 over 5 years (declining by 18 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. 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.