Mission Drift
Mission Drift
Mission Drift Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
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
37
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
30
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
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
2022 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2021 52.7% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2017 47 Fragile Recovery
2016 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2015 41 Fragile Recovery
2014 39 Fragile Decline Risk
2013 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2012 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Lucia Magney Executive Director 24.2% of Rev
Jill Pattock Secretary 2.7% of Rev
Mark Springer Board President 0.4% of Rev
Tamara Bottge Board Member 0.3% of Rev
Ross Detert Board President
Allen Horn Treasurer
Jennifer Kalpin Board Member
Suzanne Mesna Board Member
Gary Osberg Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Lucia Magney Executive Director 29.0% of Rev
Jill Pattock Secretary 1.8% of Rev
Tamara Bottge Board Member 0.2% of Rev
Ross Detert Board President
Mark Springer Board President
Allen Horn Treasurer
Jennifer Kalpin Board Member
Suzanne Mesna Board Member
Gary Osberg Board Member
Brad Gordon Ufer Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
30 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
37 / 100
Priority Review

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 7 points below the peer median (30 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

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.