Governance Lag
Governance Lag
Governance Lag Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Stable
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
65
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
100
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
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 65 Stable Stable Watch
2022 51 Fragile Recovery
2021 44 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 64 Stable Decline Risk
2019 21.5% 63 Fragile Gov Risk
2018 65 Stable Stable Watch
2017 52 Fragile Recovery
2016 43 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 43 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2014 47 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2013 43 Fragile Recovery
2012 37 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
CURTIS MCELHANEY Board President
THERESA LAUGHLIN VICE PRESIDE
DALE BURGESS SECERTARY
RANDY HANSEN Treasurer
KATHERINE TRZEBIATOWSKI Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JUSTIN EVANS Board Member 26.8% of Rev
JUSTIN EVANS Board Member
CURTIS MCELHANEY Board President
THERESA LAUGHLIN VICE PRESIDE
PEG PIEPENBURG SECERTARY
RANDY HANSEN Treasurer
CURTIS MCELHANEY Board President
THERESA LAUGHLIN VICE PRESIDE
PEG PIEPENBURG SECERTARY
RANDY HANSEN Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
100 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
65 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 103 other orgs in WI with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 63 points above the peer median (100 vs. 37).

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 63 → 65 over 5 years (improving by 2 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.