Mission Drift
Mission Drift
Mission Drift Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint

Mission Drift

"Provides professional classical, contemporary, and dramatic ballet performances and training in the Puget Sound area, showcasing both established company dancers and emerging talent."

— Statement of Program Service Accomplishments

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

Demonstrated Impact

  • full-length production of 'The Sleeping Beauty'
  • new (Debuts) contemporary and traditional ballet pieces
  • traditional and new ballet and dance pieces
  • invited to perform a contemporary repertoire piece
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Mission Drift ↑
Overall
39
Score
Governance
55
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
45
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
2025 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 Hidden Hidden 5.9% 39 Fragile Recovery
2022 — — — 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 — — 117.6% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 — — — 48 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — — 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 — — — 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 — — — 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 — — — 45 Fragile Recovery
2015 — — — 39 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 — — — 45 Fragile Recovery
2013 — — — 39 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 — — — 35 Fragile Recovery
2011 — — 27.6% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Oleg Gorboulev Artistic Director 3.0% of Rev
Mara Vinson Artistic Director 3.0% of Rev
Marilla Sargent Board President —
Kelly Hui Secretary —
Suzanne Cancler Treasurer —
Sylvia Christian Board Member —
William C Jones Board Member —
Lars Christian Board Member —
Derek Thurmer Board Member —
Elizabeth Fitzpatrick Board Member —
Kara McDermott Board Member —
Alicia Kikuchi Board Member —

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Oleg Gorboulev Artistic Director 3.0% of Rev
Mara Vinson Artistic Director 3.0% of Rev
Marilla Sargent Board President —
Kelly Hui Secretary —
Suzanne Cancler Treasurer —
Sylvia Christian Board Member —
William C Jones Board Member —
Lars Christian Board Member —
Derek Thurmer Board Member —
Elizabeth Fitzpatrick Board Member —
Kara McDermott Board Member —
Royce Napolitino Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Oleg Gorboulev Artistic Director 3.0% of Rev
Mara Vinson Artistic Director 3.0% of Rev
William C Jones Board Member —
Sally Jongitirat Board Member —
Amber Kegley Board Member —
Marilla Sargent Board President —
Melanie Kuechle Board President —
Kelly Hui Secretary —
Suzanne Cancler Treasurer —
Frank Brettholle Board Member —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Kelly Hui Board Member —
Melanie Kuechle Board Member —
Marilla Sargeant Board Member —
William C Jones Board President —
Sally Jongjitirat Board President —
Frank Brettholle Treasurer —
Harriet Rose Secretary —
Oleg Gorboulev Artistic Director —
Mara Vinson Artistic Director —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
25 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
55 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 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 333 other orgs in WA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 27 points below the peer median (25 vs. 52).

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

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).
  2. Stabilize program expenses or grow earned-income revenue to break the consecutive-deficit pattern (~8 points to financial score).

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.