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
38
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
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 55.0% 38 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2023 43 Fragile Recovery
2022 53.6% 44 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2021 39 Fragile Recovery
2020 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 39 Fragile Recovery
2015 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2012 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2011 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Renee Baldwin Board Member 28.9% of Rev
Dana Sadava Artistic Director 26.0% of Rev
Seth Jaffe Board President
Nance Becker Secretary
Jen Feigal Board Member
Merrie Jaffe Board Member
Jay Williams Board Member
Jim Chestnut Treasurer

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Elizabeth Dinsel Executive Director 33.7% of Rev
Dana Sadava Artistic Director 19.3% of Rev
Seth Jaffe Board President
Nance Becker Secretary
Jen Feigal Board Member
Jay Williams Board Member
Jim Chestnut Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
38 / 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: governance score sits 8 points below the peer median (42 vs. 50).

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. Reduce top-officer compensation from 55.0% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~40 points.
  2. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).

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