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
45
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2023 45 Fragile Recovery
2022 42 Fragile Recovery
2021 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 52 Fragile Recovery
2019 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 49 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 49 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 49 Fragile Recovery
2014 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2013 49 Fragile Decline Risk
2012 55 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DENNIS PETERMAN Board President
JAMIE K SKIPPER Board President
STEPHEN C HESS Secretary
KARYL C GINTER Treasurer
SANDRA J HARTEIS Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JASON GROVE Board President
SANDRA K STEELE Board President
STEPHEN C HESS Secretary
DANIEL C GINTER Treasurer
SANDRA J HARTEIS Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JASON GROVE Board President
SANDRA K STEELE Board President
STEPHEN C HESS Secretary
DANIEL C GINTER Treasurer
SANDRA J HARTEIS Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
65 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
45 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 295 other orgs in PA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 28 points above the peer median (65 vs. 37).

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. 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.