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.
Title
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
Historical Performance
| Year | Revenue | Top Comp | Comp % Rev | Score | Phase Label | Outlook | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Hidden | Hidden | — | — | Unknown | — | |
| 2024 | — | — | 32.1% | 44 | Governance-Stressed | Gov Risk | |
| 2023 | Hidden | Hidden | — | 43 | Fragile | Stable Watch | |
| 2022 | — | — | — | 43 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2021 | — | — | — | 39 | Fragile | Stable Watch | |
| 2020 | — | — | — | 39 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2019 | — | — | — | 37 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2018 | — | — | — | 33 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2017 | — | — | — | 37 | Fragile | Stable Watch | |
| 2016 | — | — | — | 37 | Fragile | Decline Risk | |
| 2015 | — | — | — | 43 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2014 | — | — | — | 39 | Fragile | Stable Watch | |
| 2013 | — | — | — | 39 | Fragile | Stable Watch | |
| 2012 | — | — | — | 37 | Fragile | Stable Watch | |
| 2011 | — | — | — | 39 | Fragile | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2026
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VANJA NIKOLOVSKI | Board Member | 18.5% of Rev | ||
| PAMELA HAHN | Executive Director | 9.7% of Rev | ||
| MICHAEL WALLICK | ORCHESTRA MANAGER | 3.0% of Rev | ||
| NANCY SMITH | Librarian | 1.0% of Rev | ||
| ROBERT LUSTER | Board President | — | ||
| CATHERINE NOWELL | Treasurer | — | ||
| MARK CANNON | Secretary | — | ||
| LEN MANDEL | Board Member | — | ||
| JOHN FRIEDEMAN | LEGAL COUNSEL | — | ||
| STACIE SCHAIBLE | Board Member | — | ||
| WHITNEY BROWN | Board Member | — | ||
| JIM HEPFINGER | Board Member | — | ||
| MARTIN HAUB | Board Member | — |
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 148 other orgs in AZ with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: governance score sits 15 points below the peer median (42 vs. 57).
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 32.1% is above the 90th percentile for orgs of this size (healthy band: 18–22%).
What would change this score
The two changes that would most improve this score:
- Reduce top-officer compensation from 32.1% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~20 points.
- 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.