Mission Drift
Mission Drift
Mission Drift Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
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
45
Score
Financial
50
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
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 15.9% 47 Fragile Recovery
2023 51.0% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2022 35 Fragile Recovery
2021 34.2% 44 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2020 39.3% 40 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2018 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 53 Fragile Recovery
2016 51 Fragile Recovery
2015 47 Fragile Recovery
2014 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2013 39 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2012 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 51 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MARGARET COWAN Executive Director 15.3% of Rev
CHRISTOPHER GARDNER Treasurer 0.6% of Rev
KRISTIE HOWE Board President
SCOTT SWEATT Secretary
PETER MERRITT Board Member
PATRICIA KOBER Board Member
CODY MORRISON Board Member
DON BOXWELL Board Member
HARRY WATSON Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MARGARET COWAN Executive Director 15.6% of Rev
PETER MERRITT Board Member
SCOTT SWEATT Board Member
PATRICIA KOBER Board Member
ANJALI ROOT Board Member
CHRISTOPHER GARDNER Treasurer
DAVID CAMPBELL Board President
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
50 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
47 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 22 other orgs in NH with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 11 points above the peer median (50 vs. 39).

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 40 → 47 over 5 years (improving by 7 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. 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.