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
36
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
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 36 Fragile Recovery
2022 38 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2021 33.9% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2020 37.5% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2019 59 Fragile Recovery
2018 12.3% 47 Fragile Recovery
2017 40 Fragile Gov Risk
2016 36 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 36 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 7.5% 47 Fragile Gov Risk
2013 5.1% 47 Fragile Recovery
2012 4.1% 48 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 2.0% 52 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SHERRY WEBB EXECUTIVE DI 25.2% of Rev
TROY ELHAJJ Board Member
BENJAMIN HURSH Treasurer
JASON KEENER Board Member
ART POORMAN VICE PRESIDE
AUDRA SHAUB Board Member
EARL SHOWALTER Board President
TED WILLIAMS Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SHERRY WEBB EXECUTIVE DI 23.1% of Rev
BENJAMIN HURSH Treasurer
JASON KEENER Board Member
CHARLES MILLER Secretary
ART POORMAN VICE PRESIDE
AUDRA SHAUB Board Member
EARL SHOWALTER Board President
KENNETH THOMPSON Board Member
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
36 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 296 other orgs in PA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 2 points above the peer median (40 vs. 38).

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 59 → 36 over 5 years (declining by 23 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.