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
41
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
5
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
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 41 Financially Distressed Recovery
2022 19.8% 42 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2021 13.6% 45 Fragile Recovery
2020 26 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 47 Fragile Recovery
2016 43 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2015 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 47 Fragile Recovery
2013 43 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2012 43 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2011 47 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Rachel Mansfield Board President 21.8% of Rev
Jen Friday Secretary 4.9% of Rev
Jeffrey Carlson Vice President
Chris Mansfield Treasurer

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Rachel Mansfield Board President 19.3% of Rev
Jen Friday Secretary 4.9% of Rev
Chris Mansfield Treasurer 4.5% of Rev
Jeffrey Carlson Vice President

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Rachel Mansfield Board President 9.1% of Rev
Chris Mansfield Treasurer 3.1% of Rev
Jeffrey Carlson Vice President
Jen Friday Secretary
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
55 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
41 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 130 other orgs in CT with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 23 points below the peer median (5 vs. 28).

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.