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
90
Score
Program
15
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
2023 57 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 60 Stable Stable Watch
2020 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2019 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 37 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 37 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 41 Fragile Stable Watch
2012 45 Fragile Recovery
2011 39 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ALETHEA HARTWELL Board President
DAN COLEMAN Board President
JESSICA MELENDEZ Secretary
CONNIE HESTER Treasurer
Board Member
GUY MALONE Board Member
RANDY NOLEN Board Member
ADELE BOZEMAN Board Member
HUGH TAYLOR Board Member
BEVERLY BOOTS MEMEBER AT LARGE

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ALETHEA HARTWELL Board President
DAN COLEMAN Board President
JESSICA MELENDEZ Secretary
HUGH TAYLOR Treasurer
Board Member
GUY MALONE Board Member
RANDY NOLEN Board Member
ADELE BOZEMAN Board Member
TRICIA HART Board Member
CHRIS WIPPERMAN MEMEBER AT LARGE
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
90 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 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 52 other orgs in NM with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 46 points above the peer median (90 vs. 44).

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 → 57 over 5 years (improving by 22 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.