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
34
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
15
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
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 58.1% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 47 Fragile Recovery
2019 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 47 Fragile Recovery
2017 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 47 Fragile Recovery
2014 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2013 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2011 39 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
GARY GARLETTS Artistic Director 30.3% of Rev
ANN MARIE ELLIS ACCOMPIANIST 19.7% of Rev
PATRICIA MANCUSO Board Member 7.0% of Rev
ANTHONY MANCUSO WEBMASTER 1.0% of Rev
SUSAN VISOKAS Board President
JESSICA YOTHERS Treasurer

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Gary Garletts Artistic Director 29.8% of Rev
Ann Ellis Accompianist 19.5% of Rev
John Banionis Board President
Sue Sutter Secretary
Barbara McIntosh Treasurer
Amedeo Piccioni Comptroller
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
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
34 / 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: program score sits 17 points below the peer median (15 vs. 32).

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 58.1% 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.