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
13
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
0
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
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
2023 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2022 39.5% 13 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 24 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 36 Financially Distressed Recovery
2019 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 49 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 49 Fragile Recovery
2013 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 45 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Robert Cole Board President
James E Wiggins Board President
Elizabeth Cole Secretary
Doug Johnson Treasurer
Terry Tharp Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Kevin Kerr Board President
Jerry Young Secretary
David Purvis Treasurer
Aaron Van Ostran Board President

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Kevin Kerr Board President
Jerry Young Secretary
David Purvis Treasurer
Aaron Van Ostran Board President
Kevin Kerr Board President
Jerry Young Secretary
David Purvis Treasurer
Aaron Van Ostran Board President
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
13 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 212 other orgs in OH with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 41 points below the peer median (0 vs. 41).

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.

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 39.5% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~35 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.