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
62
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
100
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
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 62 Stable Stable Watch
2023 45 Fragile Recovery
2022 44 Fragile Recovery
2019 55 Fragile Recovery
2018 49 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 49 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 49 Fragile Recovery
2015 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2013 51 Fragile Recovery
2012 45 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 51 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
HELEN DEMELLO Board President
GARY VACON Board Member
DAVID ISEMAN Board Member
CATHY NOWAK Treasurer
JANE VOSE Board Member
CHARLOTTE GREEN Board President
NICOLE TAYLOR Secretary
NOREEN CAPO Board Member
HEATHER MARIN Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
BRONWEN PROSSER Board President
GARY VACON Board Member
DAVID ISEMAN Board Member
LORNA IBBITSON Treasurer
JANE VOSE Board Member
CHARLOTTE GREEN Secretary
BRIANNE GARNER Board Member
NOREN CAPO Board Member
HELEN DEMELLO Board Member
IRENE O'CONNELL Board Member
ANNIE HART COOL Board Member
MARY LEE GEISHECKER Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
100 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
62 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 246 other orgs in MA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 58 points above the peer median (100 vs. 42).

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.