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
39
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
45
Score
Program
15
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
2024 Hidden Hidden 39 Fragile Recovery
2023 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 35.0% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 41 Fragile Recovery
2020 13.9% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 37 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 37 Fragile Recovery
2015 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 39 Fragile Recovery
2013 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2012 43 Fragile Recovery
2011 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Leah Ries Artistic Director 13.3% of Rev
Ryan Ashland Treasurer
Wes Marcus Board President
Mindy Marcus Board Member
Jennie Miles Secretary
Kevin Herbert Board Member
Jessica Lanes Board Member
Angela Olson Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Leah Ries Artistic Director 10.0% of Rev
Matt Strum Board President
Andy Reeves Board President
Ryan Ashland Treasurer
Wes Marcus Board Member
Mindy Marcus Board Member
Alyssa Thormodson Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
45 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
39 / 100
Priority Review

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 17 points below the peer median (15 vs. 32).

5-year trend: Steady State

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

Overall score has gone from 27 → 39 over 5 years (improving by 12 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Stabilize program expenses or grow earned-income revenue to break the consecutive-deficit pattern (~8 points to financial score).

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