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
58
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
90
Score
Program
5
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
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 58 Fragile Decline Risk
2022 58 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 54 Fragile Decline Risk
2019 62 Stable Stable Watch
2018 39 Fragile Recovery
2017 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 39 Fragile Recovery
2014 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 39 Fragile Decline Risk
2012 45 Fragile Recovery
2011 39 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LISA HODSON-WALKER Board President
ELIZABETH BORTHS Treasurer
WESLIE SURMAN Secretary
SUSIE FONTAINE Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
LISA HODSON-WALKER Board President
ELIZABETH BORTHS Treasurer
WESLIE SURMAN Secretary
SUSIE FONTAINE Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CORINNE WHITAKER Board President
LIANA MORGENS Treasurer
AIMEE VERSAW Secretary
ELIZABETH KELLY Board President
CORINNE WHITAKER Board President
LIANA MORGENS Treasurer
AIMEE VERSA Secretary
ELIZABETH KELLY Board President
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
90 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
58 / 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 48 points above the peer median (90 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

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

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