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
59
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
100
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Governance Lag

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2024 Hidden Hidden 59 Fragile Stable Watch
2023 59 Fragile Recovery
2022 40 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 44 Fragile Recovery
2020 45 Fragile Stable Watch
2019 45 Fragile Recovery
2018 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2017 39 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2016 43 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 43 Fragile Recovery
2014 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2013 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2012 53 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Robert Stockfish Board President
Brian Azzarello Board Member
Ann Cibulskis Board Member
John Corbett Board Member
Dennis Huston Board Member
Kat McJimsey Board Member
Dan Montgomery Board Member
Mickle Maher Executive Director

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Robert Stockfish Board President
Brian Azzarello Board Member
Ann Cibulskis Board Member
John Corbett Board Member
Dennis Huston Board Member
Kat McJimsey Board Member
Dan Montgomery Board Member
Mickle Maher Executive Director
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
100 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
59 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 196 other orgs in IL with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 64 points above the peer median (100 vs. 36).

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.

Overall score has gone from 45 → 59 over 5 years (improving by 14 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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.