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
53
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
75
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 20.9% 53 Fragile Gov Risk
2023 55 Fragile Recovery
2022 34.1% 48 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2021 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2019 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 51 Fragile Recovery
2016 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 51 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 51 Fragile Recovery
2013 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 49 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Sara Kleinsasser Tan Executive Director 20.9% of Rev
Julia Wells Board President
Kate Croatt Board President
Patricia Reller Treasurer
Megan Werner Secretary
Brianna Butler Board Member
Will Bartruff Board Member
Theresa Wise Board Member
Matthew Maxam Board Member
Rplf Krogstad Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Sara Kleinsasser Tan General Manager 18.0% of Rev
Manny Laureano Board Member 11.3% of Rev
Rebecca Jyrkas Board President
Brianna Butler Board President
Patrica Reller Treasurer
Megan Dvorak Secretary
Will Bartruff Board Member
Mike Werner Board Member
Jon West Board Member
Karen Bottge Board Member
Anne Holzman Board Member
Julia Wells Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
75 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
53 / 100
Developing

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 38 points above the peer median (75 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. 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.