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
29
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
45
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 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 40 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2021 52 Fragile Recovery
2020 26 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 25 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 21 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Patricia A Washington Board President
Larry Ward Executive Director
Ron Savage Board Member
Deborah J Avant Treasurer

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Patricia A Washington Board President
Larry Ward Executive Director
Ron Savage Board Member
Deborah J Avant Treasurer

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Patricia A Washington Board President
Larry Ward Executive Director
Ron Savage Board Member
Deborah J Avant Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
0 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
29 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 54 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 35 points below the peer median (0 vs. 35).

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 21 → 29 over 5 years (improving by 8 points).

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.