Programmatic Contraction
Programmatic Contraction
Programmatic Contraction Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint

Programmatic Contraction

What does this mean?

Total revenue is stable, but the percentage of expenses spent on actual mission shrinks. Indicates administrative bloat and spending on the machinery of raising money rather than the art itself.

The Path Forward

The Rainmaker

Represents the forced release of hoarded resources back into the community. It acts as a pressure valve against administrative capture, ensuring the mission takes priority over the machine.

The Rainmaker
The Rainmaker
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Programmatic Contraction
Overall
34
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
30
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Programmatic Contraction

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2023 Hidden Hidden 34 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 41 Fragile Recovery
2017 35.5% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2016 34.4% 44 Governance-Stressed Gov Risk
2015 17.0% 47 Fragile Recovery
2014 28.6% 37 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2013 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2012 42.3% 42 Fragile Gov Risk
2011 12.6% 45 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
RENEE BEMIS Board President
ANNI CROUTER VICE PRESIDE
DIANE MASON Treasurer
KELLY LEAHY RADDING Secretary
BOB MASON EXECUTIVE DI
JIM COE Board Member
CATHY SHEETER Board Member
WES SIEGRIST Board Member
KIMBERLY FLETCHER Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
30 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
34 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 36 other orgs in VT with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 10 points below the peer median (30 vs. 40).

5-year trend: Programmatic Contraction

Total revenue is stable, but the percentage of expenses spent on actual mission shrinks. Indicates administrative bloat and spending on the machinery of raising money rather than the art itself.

Overall score has gone from 47 → 34 over 5 years (declining by 13 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Build cash reserves to at least 3 months of operating expenses — moves financial resilience score meaningfully (~10 points).

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.