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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | — | — | — | 45 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2015 | — | — | — | 41 | Financially Distressed | Decline Risk | |
| 2014 | — | — | — | 47 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2013 | — | — | — | 25 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2012 | — | — | — | 51 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2011 | — | — | — | 29 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
No IRS 990 Part VII compensation data available for this organization.
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 830 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: financial score sits 32 points above the peer median (65 vs. 33).
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 51 → 45 over 5 years (declining by 6 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.