Mission Drift
Mission Drift
Mission Drift Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint

Mission Drift

"Serves as a consortium for Minnesota's eleven Regional Arts Councils, fostering their continuous improvement, collaboration, and professional development, particularly in areas like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion."

— Statement of Program Service Accomplishments

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

Demonstrated Impact

  • all 11 Minnesota regional arts councils participated in DEI learning process
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Mission Drift
Overall
30
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
15
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 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 38 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2020 42 Fragile Recovery
2019 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 25 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 25 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2011 21 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Mara Hanel Board President
Mary Minnick-Daniels Board Member
Anastasia Shartin Board Member
Miranda Lape Board Member
Leslie Hanlon Board Member
Nicole DeBoer Board Member
Patrick Calder-Carriere Board Member
Anna Pollock Treasurer
Kathy Mouacheupao Board Member
Rebecca Graves Board President
Timothy Wollenzien Board Member
Mara Hanel Board Member
Mary Minnick-Daniels Board Member
Anastasia Shartin Board Member
Mark Turner Board Member
Leslie Lecuyer Board Member
Nicole DeBoer Board Member
Laura Seter Board President
Anna Pollock Board Member
Kathy Mouacheupao Board President
Rebecca Graves Treasurer
Maxine Adams Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Mara Hanel Board Member
Mary Minnick-Daniels Board Member
Robin Pearson Board Member
Mark Turner Board Member
Leslie Lecuyer Board Member
Nicole DeBoer Board President
Laura Seter Board Member
Brenda Byron Board Member
Kathy Mouacheupao Board President
Drew Digby Board Member
Maxine Adams Treasurer

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Mara Hanel Board Member
Mary Minnick-Daniels Board Member
Robin Pearson Board Member
Mark Turner Board Member
Leslie Lecuyer Board Member
Nicole DeBoer Board Member
Laura Seter Board Member
Brenda Byron Board Member
Kathy Mouacheupao Board President
Drew Digby Board President
Maxine Adams Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
15 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
30 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 7 other orgs in MN with NTEE prefix A9.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 20 points below the peer median (15 vs. 35).

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

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.