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
44
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 Hidden Hidden 54.1% 44 Fragile Recovery
2021 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 21 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 43 Fragile Recovery
2015 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 41 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Dariana Trevizo Board Vice ChairContracted Instructor 20.7% of Rev
Sandra J Reagan TreasurerContracted BookkeeperGrant Writer 16.5% of Rev
Nyssa Iniguez Board SecretaryContracted Instructor 12.3% of Rev
Gayle Glenn Board Member 4.6% of Rev
Sharolyn Hohman Board President
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
65 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
44 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 12 other orgs in AZ with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 43 points above the peer median (65 vs. 22).

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. Reduce top-officer compensation from 54.1% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~40 points.
  2. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).

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