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
25
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2023 25 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 26.3% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 39 Fragile Recovery
2020 20.4% 45 Fragile Recovery
2019 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 51 Fragile Recovery
2013 45 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 45 Fragile Recovery
2011 37 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MARK HUNSBERGER Board Member 19.3% of Rev
ANDY HERRING Executive Director 1.6% of Rev
STEVEN RUDOLPH Board Member
DAVE WAGNER Board President
MARK SWARTZBAUGH Secretary
RITA HICKS Treasurer
TIM WARFIELD JR Artistic Director
DR PAUL HAIDET Board Member
JUSTIN BOWDEN Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ANDY HERRING Executive Director 15.5% of Rev
TIM WARFIELD JR Artistic Director
WILLIAM ANDERSON Board Member
PAUL HAIDET Board Member
MARK HUNSBERGER Board Member
LINCOLN REITER Board Member
PAUL MARCHETTI Board President
JOSEPH MULVEY Board President
RITA HICKS Treasurer
MARK SWARTZBAUGH Secretary
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
0 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
25 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 296 other orgs in PA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 38 points below the peer median (0 vs. 38).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 37 → 25 over 5 years (declining by 12 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.