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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | — | — | — | 55 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2012 | — | — | — | 51 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2011 | — | — | — | 35 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
No IRS 990 Part VII compensation data available for this organization.
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 236 other orgs in WA with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: financial score sits 49 points above the peer median (90 vs. 41).
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 35 → 55 over 3 years (improving by 20 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.
- Two consecutive years of deficit spending.
What would change this score
The two changes that would most improve this score:
- 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.