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 271 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.