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
38
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
25
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
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 Hidden Hidden 38 Fragile Recovery
2023 Hidden Hidden 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 41 Fragile Recovery
2021 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 50 Fragile Recovery
2019 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 43 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2017 49 Fragile Recovery
2016 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 43 Fragile Recovery
2014 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 42 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 43 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 43 Fragile Recovery
2010 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
RACHEL LOOTS Board President
CHELSA OLSON Board President
DENISE KAHLER Secretary
URSUALA ROBERTS Treasurer
JON DEYOUNG Treasurer

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ANNA JONES Board President
DENISE KAHLER Board President
JEAN BLACK Secretary
CASSIE JORDISON Treasurer
SHELLY NAPIER Secretary
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
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
38 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 86 other orgs in IA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 14 points below the peer median (25 vs. 39).

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).

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