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
49
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
75
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 49 Fragile Recovery
2020 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 45 Fragile Recovery
2017 41 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2016 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2015 45 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LISA YOUNG Board President
JOSEPH HENDERSON Board President
AMANDA DUNCAN Board Member
MARY L FOLEY Board Member
PATRICIA CORNETT Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
75 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
49 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 56 other orgs in KY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 37 points above the peer median (75 vs. 38).

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 41 → 49 over 5 years (improving by 8 points).

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.