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
29
Score
Governance
50
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
Steady State

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 Hidden Hidden 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 43 Fragile Recovery
2021 41 Fragile Recovery
2020 24.8% 39 Fragile Recovery
2019 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 39 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2017 47 Fragile Recovery
2016 43 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 43 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2014 43 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2013 49 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 49 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 51 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MYRNA PETERSON Board President
EILEEN GROSLAND VICE PRESIDE
TOM NELSON Secretary
KIRK GILBERTSON Treasurer
GARY BORDNER Board Member
MARY LAPLANT Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
TAMMY MATTONEN EXECUTIVE DI 16.6% of Rev
JESSE DAVIS Board President
TOM NELSON VICE PRESIDE
CATHY SHIELDS Secretary
KATIE MARSHALL Board Member
EILEEN GROSLAND Board Member
KELLI BISHOP Board Member
LEAH LEMM Board Member
GARY BORDNER Board Member
RACHEL DESANTIS Board Member
MYRNA PETERSON Board Member
LUKE FRANCISCO TRESURER
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
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
29 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 175 other orgs in MN with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 37 points below the peer median (0 vs. 37).

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. 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.