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
32
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
35
Score
Program
15
Score

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 Hidden Hidden 27.3% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2023 35 Financially Distressed Recovery
2022 79.9% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 51 Fragile Recovery
2018 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 51 Fragile Recovery
2013 49 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 49 Fragile Recovery
2011 41 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Lorraine Hamilton Executive Director 15.0% of Rev
Nadine Bozeman Artistic Director 6.6% of Rev
Adeline Albert Financial Manager 5.7% of Rev
Stacy Brown Board President
Bill Peden Board President
Samantha Golliett Secretary

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Lorraine Hamilton Executive Director 16.3% of Rev
Marlisa Johnson Treasurer 13.2% of Rev
Michelle Stanley Choir Manager 6.8% of Rev
Nadine Bozeman Artistic Director 6.1% of Rev
Stacy Brown Board President
Bill Peden Board President
Samantha Golliett Secretary
Deron Bozeman Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
35 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
32 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 235 other orgs in WA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 17 points below the peer median (15 vs. 32).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).
  2. Reduce top-officer compensation from 27.3% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~11 points.

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