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
38
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
15
Score
Program
45
Score

Institutional Epochs

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

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2020 38 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2019 38 Financially Distressed Recovery
2018 38 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2017 38 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2016 39 Fragile Stable Watch
2015 39 Fragile Stable Watch
2014 39 Fragile Recovery
2013 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2012 15.3% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2011 13.3% 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
DANIEL KORNICK Board President
MICHELE DOWLING JOHNSON Board President
PHIL EVANS Treasurer
ELYSE POST Secretary
DEBORAH CLOSE Executive Director
DANIEL KORNICK Board President
MICHELE DOWLING JOHNSON Board President
PHIL EVANS Treasurer
ELYSE POST Secretary

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
PHIL EVANS Board President
DANIEL KORNICK Board President
ANGELA ELLIS Treasurer
MICHELE JOHNSON Secretary
Board Member
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
45 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
38 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 176 other orgs in NJ with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 19 points below the peer median (15 vs. 34).

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 39 → 38 over 5 years (declining by 1 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.