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
65
Score
Program
30
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
2025 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 Hidden Hidden — 51 Fragile Recovery
2022 — — — 50 Financially Distressed Recovery
2021 — — — 32 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 — — — 35 Financially Distressed Recovery
2015 — — 4.8% 38 Financially Distressed Recovery
2014 — — — 51 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 — — — 47 Fragile Recovery
2012 — — — 49 Fragile Recovery
2011 — — — 45 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2026

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MEGAN YORK PARKER Board President 17.3% of Rev
JONATHAN COFSKY Board President —
JOHN SMYTH Board Member —

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MEGAN YORK PARKER Board President 3.7% of Rev
JONATHAN COFSKY Board President —
JOHN SMYTH Board Member —

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JONATHAN COFSKY Board President —
CORINNE ETIENNE Treasurer —
ROSIE HYMERLING Board Member —
MEGHAN YORK PARKER Board Member —
JONATHAN COFSKY Board President —
CORINNE ETIENNE Treasurer —
ROSIE HYMERLING Board Member —
MEGHAN YORK PARKER Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
65 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 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 165 other orgs in NJ with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: governance score sits 25 points below the peer median (50 vs. 75).

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

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.