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
37
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 — — — 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2022 — — — 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 — — — 46 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — — 43 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 — — — 39 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MANDY BAKER DRAMA VICE P —
JONI BARANIAK ASST TREASUR —
LISA BRENNEMAN Board President —
ELIZABETH COREY Treasurer —
TOM FEDESCO CONCESSION S —
DEBBIE FERRIS Board President —
CAROL FREDERICK Secretary —
KELLY HARTMAN Board President —
NICHOLE KEAGY Board President —
BERNIE PAVLOCK CONCESSION S —
CONNIE POPE Board President —
MICHAEL POPE AT-LARGE MEM —
PAUL QUEVY AT-LARGE MEM —
MARCI URBAN DRAMA VICE P —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Kelly Hartman Board President —
Randy Brown Officer —
Mary Ann Brown Officer —
Tasha Walls Treasurer —
Carol Frederick Officer —
Michael Pope Officer —
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
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
37 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 42 other orgs in PA with NTEE prefix A1.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 28 points below the peer median (40 vs. 68).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 39 → 37 over 5 years (declining by 2 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.

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