Mission Drift
Mission Drift
Mission Drift Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Stable
Trajectory Thumbprint

Mission Drift

What does this mean?

Highly volatile revenue swings year over year paired with fluctuating Program Scores. The organization is constantly pivoting to chase restricted grant funding rather than building a sustainable core.

The Path Forward

The Lodestar

A radical recommitment to the core mission. It requires the organization to gain the strength to say 'no' to restricted funding that pulls them away from their true purpose.

The Lodestar
The Lodestar
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Mission Drift
Overall
51
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 Hidden Hidden 51 Fragile Decline Risk
2022 3.0% 58 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 4.5% 60 Stable Stable Watch
2020 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 55 Fragile Recovery
2016 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 51 Fragile Recovery
2014 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2013 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 51 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Kate McCall Board Member 3.2% of Rev
Kirstyn Saulsbury Board Member 3.0% of Rev
Hannah Johnson Board President 2.7% of Rev
Sean Barker Board Member 2.0% of Rev
Kerry Landin Board President 0.5% of Rev
Stacy Landin Board Member 0.5% of Rev
Jennifer Martin Treasurer
Virginia Enfield Secretary
Kathy Keppel Board Member
Grace Johnson Board Member
Casey Barker Board Member
Heidi Baham Board Member
Annie Danielson Board Member
Matt Danielson Board Member
Jill Dockter Board Member
Amanda Pilon Board Member

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Kate McCall Board Member 6.5% of Rev
Hannah Johnson Board Member 1.3% of Rev
Kirstyn Saulsbury Board Member 1.2% of Rev
Casey Barker Board Member 1.0% of Rev
Sean Barker Board Member 0.6% of Rev
Kerry Landin Board President 0.3% of Rev
Stacy Landin Board Member 0.3% of Rev
Virginia Enfield Secretary 0.2% of Rev
Thomas Muhs Board President
Jennifer Martin Treasurer
Kathy Keppel Board Member
Grace Johnson Board Member
Luis Ventura Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Kevin Berg Board Member 1.0% of Rev
Zachary Hedner Board Member 0.8% of Rev
Sean Barker Board Member 0.7% of Rev
Hannah Johnson Board President 0.5% of Rev
Virginia Enfield Secretary 0.5% of Rev
Gillian Barrow Artistic Director 0.1% of Rev
Thomas Muhs Board President
Jennifer Martin Treasurer
Sten Wall Board Member
Rachel Vollbrecht Board Member
Kathy Keppel Board Member
Mackensie Armbruster Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Rachel Vollbrecht Board Member 0.8% of Rev
Sean Barker Board Member 0.8% of Rev
Virginia Enfield Board Member 0.4% of Rev
Hannah Johnson Board President 0.2% of Rev
Zachary Hedner Board Member 0.1% of Rev
Elise Nawrocki Secretary
Brie Stole Board Member
Sten Wall Board Member
Kathy Keppel Board Member
Thomas Muhs Board Member
Gillian Barrow Board President
Jennifer Martin Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
65 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
51 / 100
Stable

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 28 points above the peer median (65 vs. 37).

5-year trend: Mission Drift

Highly volatile revenue swings year over year paired with fluctuating Program Scores. The organization is constantly pivoting to chase restricted grant funding rather than building a sustainable core.

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.