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
33
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
20
Score
Program
30
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
2023 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2021 136.4% 24 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 47 Fragile Recovery
2019 43 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 47 Fragile Recovery
2017 37 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2016 37 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2015 37 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2014 37 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2013 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2012 41 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2011 41 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Richard Chesser Executive Director 40.2% of Rev
Sarah Moore Board Member 0.0% of Rev
Steve McErleane Board President
Christine Saplin Secretary
Stuart Neufeld Treasurer
Edward Noel Wilson Board Member
Christia Wicks Board Member
Elizabeth Wolf Board Member
BJ Costello Counsel
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
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
33 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 700 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 11 points below the peer median (20 vs. 31).

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 43 → 33 over 5 years (declining by 10 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. 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.