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
40
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Mission Drift

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2020 41 Financially Distressed Recovery
2019 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 51 Fragile Recovery
2015 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 45 Fragile Recovery
2013 39 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PRESIDENT ANNIE MEADOWS
VICE PRESIDNET AMY MEADOWS
TREASURER JENNIFER GOODMAN
SECRETARY CRYSTAL LUNT
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 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 147 other orgs in VA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 4 points above the peer median (40 vs. 36).

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 31 → 41 over 5 years (improving by 10 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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.