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
47
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

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
2024 Hidden Hidden — — Unknown —
2023 Hidden Hidden — 47 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — — 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 — — — 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 — — — 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 — — — 43 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 — — — 39 Fragile Recovery
2015 — — — 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 — — — 43 Fragile Recovery
2013 — — — 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 — — — 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Rachel Alderman Board President —
Ryan Gardner Board President —
Aric Isaacs Treasurer —
Ian Alderman Secretary —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
RACHEL ALDERMAN Board President —
RYAN GARDNER Board President —
CHRISSY GARDNER Treasurer —
IAN ALDERMAN Secretary —
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
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
47 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 183 other orgs in CT with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: governance score sits 10 points below the peer median (50 vs. 60).

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

No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.