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
40
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 Hidden Hidden 45 Fragile Recovery
2022 42.0% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 44 Fragile Recovery
2019 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
ALISHA SIEBERS EXECUTIVE DI 23.6% of Rev
SYDNEY BASTOS Board President
MICHAEL PHILLIPS BOARD SECRET
JON R WALLACE Treasurer
MARK GIACOBONE Board Member
JAKE MUNSON Board Member
NANCY MACKENZIE Board Member
GINA SZPACK Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
SYD BASTOS Board President
REX CUMMINGS Treasurer
LISA BEAMS INTERIM SECR
JAKE MUNSON Board Member
MICHAEL PHILLIPS Board Member
JENNIFER WOLFENBARGER Board Member
JODI NOBLE Board Member
KELLY BERGLAND Board Member
DEB CHRISTIANSEN Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
45 / 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 45 other orgs in MI with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 11 points above the peer median (45 vs. 34).

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 31 → 45 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.