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 182 other orgs in WI with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 45 points above the peer median (100 vs. 55).

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.