Governance Lag
Governance Lag
Governance Lag Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
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
42
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
50
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 42 Fragile Recovery
2022 52 Fragile Recovery
2021 22 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 49 Fragile Decline Risk
2012 56 Fragile Recovery
2011 49 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SCOTT MICHAEL Board Member 5,234.1% of Rev
BRIDGET MEACHAM KOWALSKI Board Member 3,339.8% of Rev
DON BORNEMAN Board Member
WILLIAM S HART Board Member
DAN S SANDMAN Board Member
Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SCOTT MICHAEL Board Member 4,388.3% of Rev
DON BORNEMAN Board Member
WILLIAM S HART Board Member
DAN S SANDMAN Board Member
Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
50 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
42 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 11 other orgs in PA with NTEE prefix A1.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 21 points below the peer median (5 vs. 26).

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.