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
55
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Governance Lag

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2021 — — — 44 Fragile Recovery
2020 — — — 22 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 — — — 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 — — — 37 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 — — — 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 — — — 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 — — — 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2011 — — — 37 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JOHN GOULD RUBIN Board Member —
JAMIE PRICE Chairman —
Chris Barreca Board Member —
Royston Coppenger Board Member —
Barbara Janice Kielhofer Board Member —
Travis Preston Board Member —
Anna Ryan Board Member —
Joe Trentacosta Board Member —
JOHN GOULD RUBIN Board Member —
JAMIE PRICE Chairman —
Chris Barreca Board Member —
Royston Coppenger Board Member —
Barbara Janice Kielhofer Board Member —
Travis Preston Board Member —
Anna Ryan Board Member —
Joe Trentacosta Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
55 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 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 1,226 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 24 points below the peer median (5 vs. 29).

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 27 → 44 over 5 years (improving by 17 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.