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.
Title
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
Historical Performance
| Year | Revenue | Top Comp | Comp % Rev | Score | Phase Label | Outlook | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Hidden | Hidden | — | — | Unknown | — | |
| 2024 | Hidden | Hidden | — | — | Unknown | — | |
| 2023 | — | — | — | 34 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2022 | — | — | — | 39 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2021 | — | — | — | 30 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2020 | — | — | — | 41 | Financially Distressed | Recovery | |
| 2019 | — | — | — | 34 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2018 | — | — | — | 39 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2017 | — | — | — | 35 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2016 | — | — | — | 39 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2015 | — | — | — | 35 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2014 | — | — | — | 35 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2013 | — | — | — | 31 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2012 | — | — | — | 31 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2011 | — | — | — | 19 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2026
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIERRE MARTEL | Board Member | — | ||
| SARAH NASH | Board President | — | ||
| PIERRE MARTEL | Board Member | — | ||
| SARAH NASH | Board President | — |
Tax year 2025
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIERRE MARTEL | Board Member | — | ||
| SARAH NASH | Board President | — |
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIERRE MARTEL | Board Member | — | ||
| SARAH NASH | Board President | — |
Tax year 2022
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SARAH NASH | Board President | — | ||
| PIERRE MARTEL | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2021
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SARAH NASH | Board President | — | ||
| PIERRE MARTEL | Board Member | — |
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 1,804 other orgs in US with NTEE prefix T2.
Most-divergent component: governance score sits 0 points above the peer median (85 vs. 85).
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
- Comp-to-revenue ratio of 0.0% sits within the sector's healthy band (18–22%).
What would change this score
No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.
Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.