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.
Title
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
Historical Performance
| Year | Revenue | Top Comp | Comp % Rev | Score | Phase Label | Outlook | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | — | — | — | 64 | Stable | Stable Watch | |
| 2020 | — | — | — | 35 | Critical Intervention Needed | Decline Risk | |
| 2019 | — | — | — | 35 | Financially Distressed | Decline Risk | |
| 2018 | — | — | — | 47 | Fragile | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANDRE WEKER | Board President | 5.8% of Rev | ||
| BELA SCHWARTZ | Board Member | — | ||
| AMY MYERS | Board Member | — | ||
| WENDY MCNEIL | Board Member | — | ||
| THOMAS PARENTE | Board Member | — | ||
| KAREN GOLDMAN | Board Member | — | ||
| SYLVIA COHN | Board Member | — | ||
| CATHERINE IRWIN | Secretary | — | ||
| LISA GITTENS WILLIAMS | Board Member | — | ||
| RAVI SRINIVASAN | Board Member | — | ||
| MEREDITH BERGMANN | Board Member | — | ||
| TED STAMAS | Board Member | — | ||
| ANDRE WEKER | Board President | — | ||
| TOM WHITE | Treasurer | — | ||
| CATHERINE IRWIN | Secretary | — | ||
| SYLVIA COHN | Board President | — | ||
| THOMAS PARENTE | Board Member | — | ||
| AMY MYERS | Board Member | — | ||
| TED STAMAS | Board Member | — | ||
| KAREN GOLDMAN | Board Member | — | ||
| WENDY MCNEIL | Board Member | — | ||
| BELA SCHWARTZ | Board Member | — | ||
| RAVI SRINIVASAN | Board Member | — | ||
| MEREDITH BERGMANN | Board Member | — |
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 250 other orgs in NJ with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: financial score sits 43 points above the peer median (90 vs. 47).
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 47 → 64 over 4 years (improving by 17 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.
What's driving this score
- All-volunteer org with no paid officers — governance signal is neutral (default 50), not absent.
What would change this score
No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.
Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.