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
22
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Mission Drift

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2022 — — — 22 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 — — — 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 — — — 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 — — — 47 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 26 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DAVID GRAF Board President —
RAY OKEEFE Board President —
CLAUDIA ANDRES Treasurer —
JANE PRICE Secretary —
AARON DEY Board Member —
JOHN DIFIORE Board Member —
THOMAS BURROWS Board Member —
LARRY ELIA Board Member —
ELIZABETH CARDAMORE Board Member —
WESLEY KRANTZ Board Member —
SUSAN GUEISSLER Board Member —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
David Graf Board President —
Ray OKeefe Board President —
David Truesdale Treasurer —
Jane Price Secretary —
Aaron Dey Board Member —
Thomas Burrows Board Member —
Larry Elia Board Member —
Wesley Krantz Board Member —
Susan Gueissler Board Member —
Sean Mackenzie Board Member —
Claudia Andres Board Member —
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
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
22 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 1,226 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 52 points below the peer median (0 vs. 52).

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 26 → 22 over 5 years (declining by 4 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.