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
34
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
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 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 44 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2020 18 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 68 Stable Stable Watch
2018 61 Stable Stable Watch
2017 61 Stable Stable Watch
2016 55 Fragile Recovery
2015 47 Fragile Recovery
2014 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2013 47 Fragile Recovery
2012 43 Fragile Recovery
2011 8.7% 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
STEVEN D BUTLER Executive Director
MARCI DUNCAN Board President
SAMANTHA STERN Board President
KRISTOFER GEDDIE Treasurer
MATTHEW BELOVAPLOVICH Secretary
GARY CADWALLADER Board President

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
STEVEN D BUTLER Executive Director
MARCI DUNCAN Board President
SAMANTHA STERN Board President
KRISTOFER GEDDIE Treasurer
MATTHEW BELOVAPLOVICH Secretary
GARY CADWALLADER Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
STEVEN D BUTLER Executive Director
STEVEN D BUTLER Executive Director
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
15 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
34 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 18 other orgs in FL with NTEE prefix A1.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 31 points below the peer median (15 vs. 46).

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 61 → 34 over 5 years (declining by 27 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. Build cash reserves to at least 3 months of operating expenses — moves financial resilience score meaningfully (~10 points).

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