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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | — | — | — | 41 | Financially Distressed | Decline Risk | |
| 2014 | — | — | — | 47 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2013 | — | — | — | 21 | 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: program score sits 27 points below the peer median (5 vs. 32).
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 21 → 41 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.
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.