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
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Steady State ↓
Overall
34
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
30
Score
Program
30
Score
Title
-
Institutions
-
Avg Revenue
-
Risk Profile
Representative Institutions
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 | — | — | 24.9% | 34 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2023 | — | — | 25.4% | 28 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2022 | — | — | 63.6% | 25 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2021 | — | — | 69.3% | 30 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2020 | — | — | 22.2% | 35 | Fragile | Gov Risk | |
| 2019 | — | — | 17.9% | 35 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2018 | — | — | 27.4% | 26 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2017 | — | — | 16.5% | 27 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2016 | — | — | 13.0% | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2015 | — | — | 28.2% | 22 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2014 | — | — | 27.7% | 26 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2013 | — | — | 36.2% | 26 | Critical Intervention Needed | Gov Risk | |
| 2012 | — | — | 35.0% | 26 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2011 | — | — | — | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2025
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHRISTOPHER SHORT | EXECUTIVE DI | 25.0% of Rev | ||
| JEREMY TUCKER | Artistic Director | — | ||
| JULIE LOWE | Board President | — | ||
| TIFFANY STURDIVANT | VICE-CHAIRMA | — | ||
| PATTY WANGEN | Treasurer | — | ||
| HELGA FASCIANO | Secretary | — | ||
| TINA MORRIS ANDERSON | Board Member | — | ||
| ERIN CLEGHORN | Board Member | — | ||
| KIM DEMERY | Board Member | — | ||
| BRENT FOGLEMAN | Board Member | — | ||
| JANEIA KNOX | Board Member | — | ||
| BLAKE SHIVER | Board Member | — | ||
| DR KENNETH TICE | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MISSY DONOVAN | Executive Director | 30.8% of Rev | ||
| JEREMY TUCKER | Artistic Director | 17.0% of Rev | ||
| JULIE LOWE | Treasurer | — | ||
| JAZZMONE SUTTON | Secretary | — | ||
| DWAYNE HOLLOWAY | Board President | — | ||
| PATTI KINGERY | Board President | — | ||
| KIM DEMERY | MBR-AT-LRG | — | ||
| BOB GOODALE | MBR-AT-LRG | — | ||
| HELGA FASCIANO | MBR-AT-LRG | — | ||
| JANEIA KNOX | MBR-AT-LRG | — | ||
| TIFFANY STURDIVANT | MBR-AT-LRG | — | ||
| DR KENNETH TICE | MBR-AT-LRG | — | ||
| JAN WHITE | MBR-AT-LRG | — |
Tax year 2022
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JEREMY TUCKER | Artistic Director | 16.2% of Rev | ||
| PATTI KINGERY | Board President | — | ||
| VINITA CHAUDHARY | Treasurer | — | ||
| JENNIFER DENEAL | Secretary | — | ||
| DAN MONEK | MBR-AT-LRG | — | ||
| DOUG YOUNG | MBR-AT-LRG | — | ||
| JAZZMONE SUTTON | MBR-AT-LRG | — | ||
| BOB GOODALE | MBR-AT-LRG | — |
Tax year 2021
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JEREMY TUCKER | Artistic Director | 16.2% of Rev | ||
| PATTI KINGERY | Board President | — | ||
| VINITA CHAUDHARY | Treasurer | — | ||
| JENNIFER DENEAL | Secretary | — | ||
| DAN MONEK | MBR-AT-LRG | — | ||
| DOUG YOUNG | MBR-AT-LRG | — | ||
| JAZZMONE SUTTON | MBR-AT-LRG | — | ||
| BOB GOODALE | MBR-AT-LRG | — |
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown
Score breakdown
Financial resilience
30 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 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 146 other orgs in NC with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: financial score sits 7 points below the peer median (30 vs. 37).
5-year trend: Steady State
No extreme longitudinal divergence detected. The organization is maintaining its current operational philosophy.
What's driving this score
- Comp-to-revenue ratio of 24.9% is modestly above the sector's healthy band (18–22%) — worth monitoring.
- Two consecutive years of deficit spending.
- Financial resilience score in the bottom quartile — reserves and liabilities ratios warrant review.
What would change this score
The two changes that would most improve this score:
- Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
- 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.