Governance Lag
Governance Lag
Governance Lag Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
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
41
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Governance Lag

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2019 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2018 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2015 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 25.7% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 32.5% 24 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2012 34.8% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2011 28.3% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

No IRS 990 Part VII compensation data available for this organization.

Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
55 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
41 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 119 other orgs in AZ with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 27 points below the peer median (5 vs. 32).

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 41 → 41 over 5 years (stable by 0 points).

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.