Mission Drift
Mission Drift
Mission Drift Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
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
19
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
5
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Mission Drift

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 51.6% 19 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2022 52.6% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 55 Fragile Recovery
2020 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 35 Fragile Recovery
2018 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 65 Stable Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KEVIN KAISER Artistic Director 105.1% of Rev
CHRISTINA BRANDENFELS Board Member 6.0% of Rev
JENNIFER SMALL Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KEVIN KAISER Artistic Director 107.4% of Rev
CHRIS BRANDFEL Board Member
JENNIFER SMALL Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KEVIN KAISER Artistic Director
CHRIS BRANDFEL Board Member
JENNIFER SMALL Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
5 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
19 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 235 other orgs in WA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 36 points below the peer median (5 vs. 41).

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.

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Reduce top-officer compensation from 51.6% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~40 points.
  2. 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.