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
27
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2021 14.7% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 42 Fragile Recovery
2019 12.1% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 8.4% 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 15.3% 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 13.6% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2015 15.2% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2014 14.8% 25 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 16.5% 22 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 14.3% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2011 14.4% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2010 17.0% 23 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2009 11.8% 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KENNETH SILVER Board Member
KEVIN SILVER Board Member
BETTE SILVER Board Member
JAMES REDDING Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
15 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
27 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 700 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 16 points below the peer median (15 vs. 31).

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 25 → 27 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. 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.