Insufficient Data
At least 3 years of filing history are required to project a trajectory.
Insufficient Data
Market
Archetype
Mechanical
Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint
Insufficient Data
What does this mean?
Not enough historical data to determine a longitudinal pattern.
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Insufficient Data ↑
Overall
28
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
30
Score
Title
-
Institutions
-
Avg Revenue
-
Risk Profile
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Insufficient Data
Historical Performance
| Year | Revenue | Top Comp | Comp % Rev | Score | Phase Label | Outlook | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Hidden | Hidden | — | — | Unknown | — | |
| 2024 | Hidden | Hidden | — | — | Unknown | — | |
| 2023 | Hidden | Hidden | — | 28 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2022 | — | — | — | 25 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2026
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LESLIE WU FOLEY | Board President | — | ||
| MICHAEL BENNETT | Board Member | — | ||
| MIDORI SAMSON | Board Member | — | ||
| MICHELLE FAY | Board Member | — | ||
| JOSEPH SU | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2025
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LESLIE WU FOLEY | Board President | — | ||
| FARAYI MALEK | Board Member | — | ||
| MIDORI SAMSON | Board Member | — | ||
| STEVE STERN | Board Member | — | ||
| JOSEPH SU | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NICHOLAS BROWN | Executive Director | 1.7% of Rev | ||
| ALYSSA WANG | Artistic Director | 1.4% of Rev | ||
| JONATHAN BRUMMER | Board Member | — | ||
| SHEILA LALWANI | Board Member | — | ||
| FARAYI MALEK | Board Member | — | ||
| MIDORI SAMSON | Board Member | — | ||
| STEVE STERN | Board Member | — | ||
| ELIZABETH WILLIAMS | Board Member | — |
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
28 / 100
Priority Review
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 245 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: financial score sits 42 points below the peer median (0 vs. 42).
5-year trend: Insufficient Data
Not enough historical data to determine a longitudinal pattern.
What's driving this score
- 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:
- 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.