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
18
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Mission Drift

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2021 121.6% 18 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 0.3% 48 Fragile Recovery
2019 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 37 Financially Distressed Recovery
2016 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 45 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LIZA SPRINGER-PEPPER Artistic Director 121.6% of Rev
ROSARIO DIBERNARDO Board President
ROSA MARTINEZ Secretary
BARBARA PETERSON FUNDRAISING
ANGELA PRUDHOMME EXEC BOARD M
RAYMOND THOMPSON EXEC BOARD M
CHRISTINE WILLIAMS Treasurer

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LIZA SPRINGER-PEPPER Artistic Director 1.9% of Rev
ROSARIO DIBERNARDO Board President
ROSA MARTINEZ Secretary
BARBARA PETERSON FUNDRAISING
ANGELA PRUDHOMME EXEC BOARD M
RAYMOND THOMPSON EXEC BOARD M
CHRISTINE WILLIAMS 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
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
18 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 146 other orgs in NC with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 37 points below the peer median (0 vs. 37).

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 37 → 18 over 5 years (declining by 19 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Reduce top-officer compensation from 121.6% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~40 points.
  2. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).

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