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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | — | — | — | 47 | Fragile | Decline Risk | |
| 2022 | — | — | — | 54 | Fragile | Decline Risk | |
| 2021 | — | — | — | 37 | Fragile | Stable Watch | |
| 2020 | — | — | — | 40 | Fragile | Decline Risk | |
| 2019 | — | — | — | 58 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2018 | — | — | — | 55 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2017 | — | — | — | 45 | Fragile | Decline Risk | |
| 2016 | — | — | — | 49 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2015 | — | — | — | 45 | Fragile | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHARLES BENE | Board President | — | ||
| HANS WALDMANN | Board President | — | ||
| GARY BLUMENTHAL | Secretary | — |
Tax year 2022
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHARLES BENET | Board President | — | ||
| HANS WALDMANN | Board President | — | ||
| GARY BLUMENTHAL | Secretary | — |
Tax year 2021
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHARLES BENET | Board President | — | ||
| HANS WALDMANN | Board President | — | ||
| GARY BLUMENTHAL | Secretary | — |
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 376 other orgs in MA 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 58 → 47 over 5 years (declining by 11 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.