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
27
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
20
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2023 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 10.2% 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2019 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2016 25 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 14.4% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 9.0% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Angela Vangalis Board President
Deanna Fava Board President
Belinda Anderson Secretary
Gina Tanner Board Member
Francis Stoppiello Board Member
Tamer Ghoneim Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Angela Vangalis Board President Hidden
Deanna Fava Board President
Cayetano Olivarez Treasurer
Belinda Anderson Secretary
Gina Tanner Program Development
Francis Stoppiello Board Member
Angela Vangalis Board President
Deanna Fava Board President
Cayetano Olivarez Treasurer
Belinda Anderson Secretary
Gina Tanner Program Development
Francis Stoppiello Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
20 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
27 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 27 other orgs in TX with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 15 points below the peer median (5 vs. 20).

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.

Overall score has gone from 25 → 27 over 5 years (improving by 2 points).

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.