Acute Resource Divergence
Acute Resource Divergence
Acute Resource Divergence Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint

Acute Resource Divergence

What does this mean?

Revenue is contracting significantly, but executive compensation percentage is rising. The organization is refusing to adjust its administrative overhead to match its new economic reality.

The Path Forward

The Realignment

Forces immediate balancing of administrative bloat against actual programmatic output. It demands that every dollar extracted for overhead be justified by community impact.

The Realignment
The Realignment
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Acute Resource Divergence
Overall
22
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Resource Divergence

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 Hidden Hidden 35.1% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 34.2% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 18.2% 35 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2020 16.7% 35 Financially Distressed Recovery
2019 18.5% 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 15.1% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 10.7% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2016 18.1% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 35 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2012 43 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2011 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MARIDEE SLATER Artistic Director 17.5% of Rev
LELA OLSON Board Member 17.5% of Rev
JEFFREY PROTTAS Board President
ELI ARONSON Treasurer
LINH GILLES Board Member
JANESSA PRAWER Board Member
ALLI ST JOHN Board Member
ANN JOHNSON STEWART Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Charlie Leanard Artistic Director 15.8% of Rev
Dana Carlson Board President
Drew Page Board President
Dave Hoover Treasurer
Armando Mojica Secretary
Jen Biggs Board Member
Jolene Noelle Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Charlie Leanard Artistic Director 15.8% of Rev
Dana Carlson Board President
Jen Biggs Board President
Dave Hoover Treasurer
Robyn Ruark Secretary
Jodi Danovsky Board Member
Norah Bluvshtein Board Member
Brennen Ohlemann Board Member
Drew Page Board Member
Rebecca Skelton Board Member
Liz Ward Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Charlie Leanard Artistic Director 18.5% of Rev
Dana Carlson Board President
Jen Biggs Board President
Dave Hoover Treasurer
Robyn Ruark Secretary
Jodi Danovsky Board Member
Norah Olson Bluvshtein Board Member
Katie Sale Board Member
Elizabeth Ward Board Member
Rebecca Skelton Board Member
Wendy Olson Board Member
Ami Tix Board Member
Brennen Ohlemann Board Member
Drew Page 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
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
22 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 174 other orgs in MN with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 38 points below the peer median (0 vs. 38).

5-year trend: Acute Resource Divergence

Revenue is contracting significantly, but executive compensation percentage is rising. The organization is refusing to adjust its administrative overhead to match its new economic reality.

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Reduce top-officer compensation from 35.1% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~26 points.
  2. 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.