Governance Lag
Governance Lag
Governance Lag Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
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
35
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Governance Lag

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2022 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 22 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 19 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 19 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2016 19 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2014 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2013 43 Fragile Recovery
2012 33 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Dr Richard Shaw Board President
Dorothy Kontak Board President
John Palmer Treasurer
Lynn Marty Grames Board Member
Dr Gary Lessmann Board Member
Lucinda Vantine Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
35 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 105 other orgs in MO with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 25 points below the peer median (5 vs. 30).

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.

Overall score has gone from 19 → 35 over 5 years (improving by 16 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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.