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.
Title
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
Historical Performance
| Year | Revenue | Top Comp | Comp % Rev | Score | Phase Label | Outlook | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | — | — | — | 35 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2017 | — | — | — | 23 | Critical Intervention Needed | Recovery | |
| 2016 | — | — | — | 19 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2015 | — | — | — | 31 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
No IRS 990 Part VII compensation data available for this organization.
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 830 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: program score sits 26 points below the peer median (5 vs. 31).
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 31 → 35 over 4 years (improving by 4 points).
What's driving this score
- All-volunteer org with no paid officers — governance signal is neutral (default 50), not absent.
- Two consecutive years of deficit spending.
What would change this score
The two changes that would most improve this score:
- 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.