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
42
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
50
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 42 Fragile Recovery
2020 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 25 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 21 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 29 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
AMY PLAPP Treasurer
MARGARET KNIGHT Board President
SUE TRINKO Secretary
JOHN HARDER Board Member
PAMELA ARWINE Board Member
FRANCIS MC THOMPSON Board Member
DONALD CLARKE Board Member
BONITA BOWMAN Board Member
ETHNE CLARKE Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
AMY PLAPP Treasurer
MARGARET KNIGHT Board President
SUE TRINKO Secretary
JOHN HARDER Board Member
PAMELA ARWINE Board Member
FRANCIS MC THOMPSON Board Member
DONALD CLARKE Board Member
BONITA BOWMAN Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
50 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
42 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 183 other orgs in CO 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 21 → 42 over 5 years (improving by 21 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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.