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
59
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
100
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
2023 59 Fragile Recovery
2022 58 Fragile Recovery
2021 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 54 Fragile Recovery
2019 45 Fragile Recovery
2018 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 43 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 53 Fragile Recovery
2015 47 Fragile Recovery
2014 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2013 41 Fragile Recovery
2012 37 Fragile Decline Risk
2011 41 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SHIRLEY GELFAND Board President
SUSAN CHORNEY LEVINE Board President
ABBE KALMAN Vice President
SANDY RYTER Board President
MYRNA RODKIN Board President
BETTY MAGRO Treasurer
KRIS HENKE Board President
MERRY RENERT Vice President
MARYLOU SCHIMEL Secretary
DEBBIE RUBIN Secretary

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SHIRLEY GELFAND VICE PRESIDE
SUSAN CHORNEY LEVINE Board President
ABBE KALMAN Vice President
SANDY RYTER VICE PRESIDE
MYRNA RODKIN Board President
BETTY MAGRO Treasurer
MERRY RENERT Vice President
MAXINE SCHREIBER Board President
MARYLOU SCHIMEL RECORDING SE
DEBBIE RUBIN CORRESPOND S
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
100 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
59 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 48 other orgs in FL with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 70 points above the peer median (100 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 45 → 59 over 5 years (improving by 14 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.