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
45
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 45 Fragile Recovery
2022 44 Financially Distressed Recovery
2021 26 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 48 Fragile Recovery
2019 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2018 45 Fragile Recovery
2017 41 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2016 45 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 45 Fragile Recovery
2014 41 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2013 41 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2012 41 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Megan Dray Board President
Brandon Burgess Board President
Deborah Hutter Treasurer
Angela Sandy Secretary

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MEGAN DRAY Board President
JUDY PETERSON Board President
DEBORAH HUTTER Treasurer
ANGELA SANDY Secretary

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MEGAN DRAY Board President
JUDY PETERSON Board President
DEBORAH HUTTER Treasurer
ANGELA SANDY Secretary
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
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
45 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 699 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 34 points above the peer median (65 vs. 31).

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 41 → 45 over 5 years (improving by 4 points).

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.