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
53
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
70
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
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 53 Fragile Recovery
2022 38 Financially Distressed Recovery
2021 33 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 52 Fragile Recovery
2019 45 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 48 Fragile Recovery
2017 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 55 Fragile Recovery
2015 51 Fragile Recovery
2014 35 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2013 37 Fragile Recovery
2012 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2011 41 Financially Distressed Recovery
2010 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Anatoli Murha Treasurer
Boyan Makarenko Secretary
Victor Lishchyna Board President
Andriy Hladyshevsky Board President
Stephen Szyszka Board President

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Anatoli Murha Treasurer
Theodore Bodnar Secretary
Victor Lishchyna Board President
Andriy Hladyshevsky Board President
Stephen Szyszka Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Wolodymyr Babicky Board President
Theodore Bodnar Secretary
Anatoli Murha Treasurer
Bohdan Pryjma Board President
Victor Lishchyna Board President
Danylo Smolilo Board President
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
70 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
53 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 45 other orgs in MI with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 27 points above the peer median (70 vs. 43).

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.