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

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Mission Drift

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2024 Hidden Hidden 12.0% 80 Unknown
2023 Hidden Hidden 12.0% 79 Unknown
2022 Hidden Hidden 12.0% 91 Unknown
2020 Hidden Hidden 12.0% 92 Unknown
2017 Hidden Hidden 12.0% 79 Unknown
2016 Hidden Hidden 12.0% 90 Unknown
2015 Hidden Hidden 12.0% 75 Unknown
2014 Hidden Hidden 12.0% 90 Unknown
2013 Hidden Hidden 12.0% 88 Unknown
2012 Hidden Hidden 12.0% 76 Unknown
2011 Hidden Hidden 12.0% 81 Unknown

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2024

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
XML Data Pending Top Officer (Est.) 12.0% of Rev

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
XML Data Pending Top Officer (Est.) 14.3% of Rev
JOSEPH DUBBIOSI CONDUCTOR
LAURA CARNIBUCCI Treasurer
JOHN CANNIZZARO Board President
Kyunghum kim CONDUCTOR
ABBEY BENNETT Board President
ERIC SCHABERG CONDUCTOR

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
XML Data Pending Top Officer (Est.) 15.7% of Rev
Kyunghum kim CONDUCTOR 11.6% of Rev
ERIC SCHABERG CONDUCTOR 8.2% of Rev
JOSEPH DUBBIOSI CONDUCTOR 4.5% of Rev
LAURA CARNIBUCCI Treasurer
JOHN CANNIZZARO Board President
ABBEY BENNETT Board President

Tax year 2020

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
XML Data Pending Top Officer (Est.) 13.4% of Rev

Tax year 2017

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
XML Data Pending Top Officer (Est.) 17.3% of Rev

Tax year 2016

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
XML Data Pending Top Officer (Est.) 21.9% of Rev

Tax year 2015

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
XML Data Pending Top Officer (Est.) 29.4% of Rev

Tax year 2014

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
XML Data Pending Top Officer (Est.) 27.5% of Rev

Tax year 2013

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
XML Data Pending Top Officer (Est.) 27.9% of Rev

Tax year 2012

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
XML Data Pending Top Officer (Est.) 30.1% of Rev

Tax year 2011

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
XML Data Pending Top Officer (Est.) 28.1% of Rev
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 176 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 79 → 80 over 5 years (improving by 1 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.