Mission Drift
Mission Drift
Mission Drift Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Stable
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
47
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Mission Drift

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2024 — — — 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2023 Hidden Hidden — 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 — — — 47 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — — 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 — — — 62 Stable Stable Watch
2019 — — — 62 Stable Stable Watch
2018 — — — 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 — — — 41 Fragile Recovery
2016 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 — — — 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2014 — — — 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 — — — 53 Fragile Recovery
2012 — — — 43 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Kat Cook Board President —
Meja Pannell-Tyehimba Board President —
Paula McConnell Secretary —
Richard Spann Treasurer —
Cristina Arriola Board President —
Hugo Vides Board President —
Kat Cook Board President —
Meja Pannell-Tyehimba Board President —
Paula McConnell Secretary —
Richard Spann Treasurer —
Cristina Arriola Board President —
Hugo Vides Board President —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
65 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
47 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 1,425 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 16 points below the peer median (15 vs. 31).

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 62 → 47 over 5 years (declining by 15 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.