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.
Title
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
Historical Performance
| Year | Revenue | Top Comp | Comp % Rev | Score | Phase Label | Outlook | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | — | — | — | 40 | Fragile | Decline Risk | |
| 2020 | — | — | — | 44 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2017 | — | — | — | 27 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2016 | — | — | — | 33 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2015 | — | — | — | 55 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2014 | — | — | — | 51 | Fragile | Decline Risk | |
| 2013 | — | — | — | 55 | Fragile | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2022
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRIAN ELDER | Board President | — | ||
| JULIA WALTER | VICE PRESIDE | — | ||
| Treasurer | — | |||
| SEAN JORDAN | Secretary | — | ||
| BOBBI WILDING | Board Member | — | ||
| POSIE SHAW | Board Member | — | ||
| WILLARD MARTIN | Board Member | — | ||
| LIBBY HAMMECKER | Board Member | — | ||
| KATE HORN | Board Member | — | ||
| SAOIRSE HOOPER | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2021
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUSAN PERRY | Board President | — | ||
| WILLARD MAROW | Board President | — | ||
| JOSH SHUART | Board Member | — | ||
| ELIZABETH HAMMECKER | Board Member | — | ||
| POSIE SHAW | Board Member | — | ||
| DENNIS SHAW | Board Member | — | ||
| CHERIE STEVENS | Board Member | — | ||
| JULIA WALTER | Board Member | — | ||
| MARK PRACHER | Treasurer | — |
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 699 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: program score sits 24 points below the peer median (5 vs. 29).
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 55 → 40 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
- All-volunteer org with no paid officers — governance signal is neutral (default 50), not absent.
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.