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
39
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
50
Score
Program
5
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 39 Fragile Decline Risk
2022 46 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 58 Fragile Recovery
2020 24 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 19 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 43 Fragile Recovery
2017 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2016 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 21 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 21 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 19 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2011 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
AMY DECESARE Board President
TAMMY CAMPBELL Board President
KARIN POVEREMO Secretary
ALAINE SINE Treasurer

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
AMY DECESARE Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
AMY DECESARE Board President
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
50 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
39 / 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 NJ with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 21 points below the peer median (5 vs. 26).

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 19 → 39 over 5 years (improving by 20 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

What's driving this score

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.