Governance Lag
Governance Lag
Governance Lag Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Stable
Trajectory Thumbprint

Governance Lag

What does this mean?

Revenue and Program Scale spike rapidly, but the Governance Score remains stagnant. The organization has outgrown its founding era but hasn't installed proper oversight.

The Path Forward

The Scaffold

Brings immediate structural maturity. It represents the necessity of outside, independent oversight to manage new scale, breaking the echo chamber of a founding 'friends and family' board.

The Scaffold
The Scaffold
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Governance Lag
Overall
55
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
90
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Governance Lag

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 Hidden Hidden 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 55 Fragile Recovery
2021 19 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2020 19 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 41 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2018 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2017 45 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 45 Fragile Recovery
2015 43 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 51 Fragile Recovery
2012 47 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2011 47 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Anna Kravets Board President
Viktoriya Kovalenko Treasurer
Tatyana Vernovsky Secretary

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Anna Kravets Board President
Viktoriya Kovalenko Treasurer
Tatyana Vernovsky Secretary

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Anna Kravets Board President
Viktoriya Kovalenko Treasurer
Tatyana Vernovsky Secretary
Anna Kravets Board President
Viktoriya Kovalenko Treasurer
Tatyana Vernovsky Secretary
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
90 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
55 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 54 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 56 points above the peer median (90 vs. 34).

5-year trend: Governance Lag

Revenue and Program Scale spike rapidly, but the Governance Score remains stagnant. The organization has outgrown its founding era but hasn't installed proper oversight.

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.