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
44
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
40
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
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 44 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 44 Financially Distressed Recovery
2021 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 46 Fragile Recovery
2019 39 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 43 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 43 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 43 Fragile Recovery
2015 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 39 Financially Distressed Recovery
2013 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 43 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SAE ROM LEE STRICKLAND Executive Director
UTA GRAF-APOSTOL Board Member
JOHN APOSTOL Treasurer
ERICA H FERRO CPA Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SAE ROM LEE STRICKLAND Executive Director
UTA GRAF-APOSTOL Board Member
JOHN APOSTOL Treasurer
ERICA H FERRO CPA Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
UTA GRAF-APOSTOL Executive Director
JOHN APOSTOL Treasurer
MANFRED ULBRICH Board Member
ERICA H FERRO CPA Board Member
MARE TALBOT Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
44 / 100
Priority Review

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: financial score sits 7 points above the peer median (40 vs. 33).

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.

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.