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
51
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
75
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 Hidden Hidden — 51 Fragile Recovery
2022 — — — 51 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 — — — 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 — — — 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 — — — 43 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 — — — 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 — — — 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 — — — 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 — — — 55 Fragile Recovery
2013 — — — 47 Fragile Recovery
2012 — — — 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 — — — 43 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
BETHANY DUNAKIN Board President —
DEREK NELSON Secretary —
SHELLEY BOLMAN Board Member —
NICOLE A VANDERLAAN Board Member —
SEMI SPAHALLARI Treasurer —
PAUL RIVENBERG Board Member —
Kortney Adams MArtin Board Member —
ERIC HERMANSON 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
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
51 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 376 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 20 points above the peer median (75 vs. 55).

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 47 → 51 over 5 years (improving by 4 points).

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.