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
49
Score
Governance
45
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
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 Hidden Hidden 22.9% 49 Fragile Gov Risk
2023 Hidden Hidden 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2021 51 Fragile Recovery
2020 25.2% 48 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2019 20.4% 37 Fragile Gov Risk
2018 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 55 Fragile Recovery
2014 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 51 Fragile Recovery
2012 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Riet Velthuisen Executive Director 20.2% of Rev
Genevieve Spooner Treasurer 2.7% of Rev
Kim Kirby Board Member
Heather Shafland Board President
Molly Wyss Secretary
Mary Vasaly Board Member
Anne Burns Board President
Beth VanHoever Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Riet Velthuisen Executive Director 16.1% of Rev
Genevieve Spooner Treasurer 3.9% of Rev
Kim Kirby Board Member
Heather Shafland Board Member
Amy Dennison Board Member
Mary Vasaly Board President
Anne Burns Board President
Ashlie Keigh Board Member
Lori Barnd Board Member
Beth VanHoever Board Member
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
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
49 / 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 28 points above the peer median (65 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).
  2. Reduce top-officer compensation from 22.9% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~5 points.

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.