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
57
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
80
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2023 57 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 53 Fragile Recovery
2021 39 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 54 Fragile Recovery
2019 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 47 Fragile Recovery
2016 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 47 Fragile Recovery
2014 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2013 51 Fragile Recovery
2012 43 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SEE ATTACHED ALL VOLUNTEERS BOARD MEMBERS
LAURA PROFFIT ADMINISTRATOR
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
80 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
57 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 212 other orgs in OH with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 39 points above the peer median (80 vs. 41).

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 47 → 57 over 5 years (improving by 10 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Stabilize program expenses or grow earned-income revenue to break the consecutive-deficit pattern (~8 points to financial score).

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.