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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | — | — | — | 52 | Financially Distressed | Decline Risk | |
| 2021 | — | — | — | 48 | Fragile | Decline Risk | |
| 2020 | — | — | — | 58 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2018 | — | — | — | 33 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2017 | — | — | — | 43 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2016 | — | — | — | 27 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2013 | — | — | — | 37 | Fragile | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LEWIS CHAPMAN | Board President | — | ||
| SUSAN KOPACKA | Treasurer | — | ||
| NANCIE SVENSON | Board President | — | ||
| LISA FREISS | Secretary | — |
Tax year 2022
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NANCY C PENNINGTON | Board President | — | ||
| SUSAN KOPACKA | Treasurer | — | ||
| REBECCA MINK | Board President | — |
Tax year 2021
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NANCY C PENNINGTON | Board President | — | ||
| SUSAN KOPACKA | Treasurer | — | ||
| REBECCA MINK | Board President | — |
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 13 other orgs in TN with NTEE prefix A2.
Most-divergent component: financial score sits 31 points above the peer median (75 vs. 44).
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 43 → 52 over 5 years (improving by 9 points).
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.