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
75
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 Hidden Hidden — 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 — — — 54 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — — 38 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2020 — — — 46 Financially Distressed Recovery
2019 — — — 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 — — — 51 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2016 — — — 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 — — — 47 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 — — — 51 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DANIELLE AGAMI Foundation Mgr. —
TREVOR DAVIS Board Member —
ARIEL CARPENTER Chairman —
LORRAINE EVANOFF Treasurer —
STEVE OSKARD Board Member —
CHERYL MANN Board Member —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DANIELLE AGAMI Foundation Mgr. —
TREVOR DAVIS Board Member —
ARIEL CARPENTER Chairman —
LORRAINE EVANOFF Treasurer —
STEVE OSKARD Board Member —
CHERYL MANN Board Member —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DANIELLE AGAMI Foundation Mgr. —
TREVOR DAVIS Board Member —
ARIEL CARPENTER Chairman —
LORRAINE EVANOFF Treasurer —
STEVE OSKARD Board Member —
CHERYL MANN Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
75 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 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 186 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A9.

Most-divergent component: governance score sits 28 points below the peer median (50 vs. 78).

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 35 → 55 over 5 years (improving by 20 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.