Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
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
50
Score
Governance
55
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
60
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 Hidden Hidden 5.9% 50 Fragile Recovery
2022 11.3% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 14.2% 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 11.5% 37 Fragile Recovery
2019 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Brett Ishida Artistic Director 4.5% of Rev
Clark Semders Treasurer
John Chen Board Of Directors
Robert Petrarca Board Of Directors
Kate Jessup Board Of Directors

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Brett Ishida Executive Director 4.4% of Rev
John Chen Board Member
Clark Senders Treasurer
Charles Phillips Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Brett Ishida Executive Director 2.1% of Rev
John Chen Board Member
Clark Senders Treasurer
Charles Phillips Board Member
Mathew Papas Board Member
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
55 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
50 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 132 other orgs in TX with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 28 points above the peer median (60 vs. 32).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 29 → 50 over 5 years (improving by 21 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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.