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
68
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
100
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2011
2012
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 68 Stable Stable Watch
2023 53 Fragile Recovery
2022 44 Fragile Recovery
2021 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 52 Fragile Recovery
2019 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2017 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 55 Fragile Recovery
2015 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2014 51 Fragile Recovery
2013 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2012 55 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
John Light Board Member
Steve Murillo Board Member
David Ragsdale Board Member
Kirsten Oakley Ragsdale Board President

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Lynda Hannah Secretary
John Light Board Member
Steve Murillo Board Member
Michael Perroni Board Member
David Ragsdale Board Member
Kirsten Oakley Ragsdale Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Kirsten Oakley Ragsdale Board President
Lynda Hannah Secretary
Jon Light Board Member
Steve Murillo Board Member
Michael Perroni Board Member
David Ragsdale Nonvoting Officer
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
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
68 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 829 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 67 points above the peer median (100 vs. 33).

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.