Mission Drift
Mission Drift
Mission Drift Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Stable
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
60
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
90
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2025 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2024 — — — 60 Stable Stable Watch
2023 — — — 51 Fragile Decline Risk
2022 — — — 58 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — — 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 — — — 49 Fragile Stable Watch
2019 — — — 49 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 — — — 53 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 — — — 53 Fragile Recovery
2016 — — — 49 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Deborah Femovich Executive Director —
Cheryl Leech Executive Director —
Todd Plowman Treasurer —
Michael Sleet Board President —
Kinta Alizzeo Editor-in-Chief —
Nicole Morrell Board Member —
Cynthia Richar Board President —
Sarah Lind Board Member —
Jennifer Murphy Board Member —
Jennifer Brunot Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Deborah Femovich Artistic Director —
Cheryl Leech Executive Director —
Todd Plowman Treasurer —
Allison Frazier Board President —
Kinta Alizzeo Editor-in-Chief —
Nicole Morrell Board Member —
Maria Alcorn Board Member —
Sarah Lind Board Member —
Cynthia Richar Board President —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
90 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
60 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 461 other orgs in PA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 37 points above the peer median (90 vs. 53).

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

No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.

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