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
52
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
50
Score
Program
60
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
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 13.5% 52 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 9.7% 54 Fragile Recovery
2021 51 Fragile Recovery
2020 36.4% 36 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2019 48 Fragile Recovery
2018 37 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 37 Fragile Recovery
2016 15.0% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 16.1% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 15.3% 35 Fragile Decline Risk
2013 15.8% 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 12.7% 39 Fragile Recovery
2011 16.7% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
NICOLE MULDER Executive Director 11.0% of Rev
LISA GUSTAFSON Board Member
TOM OBERT Board Member
BETTY RAVNIK Board Member
FRED BURSCH Board President
TESSA LARSON Board Member
JUDY BLASEG Board President
JAMES PENCE PHD Board President
DAVID BERG Treasurer
PHILIP EIDSVOLD Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
NICOLE MULDER Executive Director 11.2% of Rev
LISA GUSTAFSON Board Member
TOM OBERT Treasurer
BETTY RAVNIK Board Member
FRED BURSCH Board President
TESSA LARSON Secretary
JUDY BLASEG Board Member
JAMES PENCE PHD Board President
DAVID BERG Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
50 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
60 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
52 / 100
Developing

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: program score sits 29 points above the peer median (60 vs. 31).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 48 → 52 over 5 years (improving by 4 points).

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.