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
54
Score
Governance
58
Score
Financial
75
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
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
2022 — — 5.0% 54 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — — 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2020 — — — 58 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — — 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 — — — 55 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 51 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 — — — 55 Fragile Recovery
2015 — — — 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 — — — 55 Fragile Recovery
2013 — — — 51 Fragile Recovery
2012 — — — 43 Fragile Recovery
2011 — — — 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DARIUS POLIKAITIS Board Member 4.9% of Rev
GITANA LEVANIENE Treasurer —
KRISTINA MAZILIAUSKIENE Secretary —
DARIUS CEPULIS Board Member —
LINA ZLIOBA Board Member —
ANDRIUS TAMULIS Board Member —
AUDRIUS ALEKSIUNAS Board Member —
VINCENT STANISKIS Board President —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
VINCENT STANISKIS Board President —
DARIUS POLIKAITIS Board Member —
GITANA LEVANIENE Treasurer —
AIDA GUST Secretary —
MONIKA DOBROVOLSKYTE Board Member —
LINA ZLIOBA Board Member —
ANDRIUS TAMULIS Board Member —
GIEDRE DIRZIENE Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
75 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
58 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
54 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 376 other orgs in IL with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 18 points above the peer median (75 vs. 57).

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 → 54 over 5 years (declining by 1 points).

What's driving this score

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.