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
44
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Governance Lag

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2020 44 Fragile Recovery
2019 43 Fragile Recovery
2018 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2017 51 Fragile Recovery
2016 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KATY RINNE Board President
RJ GLANTZ Board President
BARBARA SANDICK Executive Director
JANIE WILCOX Treasurer
STEPHANIE MEISNER-MAGGARD Secretary

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KATY RINNE Board President
RJ GLANTZ Board President
BARBARA SANDICK Executive Director
JANIE WILCOX Treasurer
TIFFANY ERICKSON Artistic Director
STEPHANIE MEISNER-MAGGARD Secretary

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KATY RINNE Board President
RJ GLANTZ Board President
BARBARA SANDICK Executive Director
JANIE WILCOX Treasurer
TIFFANY ERICKSON Artistic Director
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
55 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
44 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 15 other orgs in WY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 25 points below the peer median (5 vs. 30).

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 → 44 over 5 years (declining by 3 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.