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
31
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
30
Score
Program
5
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
2025 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 Hidden Hidden 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 41 Fragile Recovery
2021 12.0% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 9.7% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2019 6.4% 30 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 12.3% 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2015 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 29 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2011 25 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
BARBARA HOOPENGARDNER Treasurer 9.9% of Rev
KENNETH WOMACK PHD Board President
JUDITH G LEONE Board President
KENNETH MALAGIERE Treasurer
FRANK HUGHES Board Member
ROSALIE HARVEY Board Member

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
BARBARA HOOPENGARDNER Treasurer 24.5% of Rev
KAREN PORCELLO Board Member
LAUREN M DOOLEY ESQ Board Member
NANCY MEZEY PHD Board President
LYNDA E RABENS Secretary
KENNETH WOMACK PHD Board President
JUDITH G LEONE Board Member
ESTELLE WEBMAN BRODKEY Board Member
JAMES BUFFUM Board Member
KENNETH MALAGIERE Board Member
KAREN DIEHL Treasurer
ANN MARIE BAKER Board Member
ROSALIE HARVEY Board Member

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
BARBARA HOOPENGARDNER Treasurer 27.8% of Rev
GABRIELLA HEIZLER EXECUTIVE DIREC 12.2% of Rev
KAREN PORCELLO Board Member
LAUREN M DOOLEY ESQ Board Member
NANCY MEZEY PHD Board President
LYNDA E RABENS Secretary
KEN WOMACK Board President
JUDITH G LEONE Board Member
ESTELLE BRODKEY Board Member
RITA KEARNEY Board Member
JAMES BUFFUM Board Member
KENNETH MALAGIERE Board Member
RENEE LOMELL Board Member
KAREN DIEHL Treasurer
ANN MARIE BAKER Board Member
ROSALIE HARVEY Board Member
LINDA ABRAMSON Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
BARBARA HOOPENGARDNER Treasurer 29.3% of Rev
GABRIELLA HEIZLER Executive Dir. 2.0% of Rev
KAREN PORCELLO Board Member
LAUREN M DOOLEY ESQ Board President
NANCY MEZEY PHD Board President
LYNDA E RABENS Secretary
KEN WOMACK Board President
JUDITH G LEONE Board Member
ESTELLE BRODKEY Board Member
RITA KEARNEY Board Member
JAMES BUFFUM Board Member
KENNETH MALAGIERE Board Member
RENEE LOMELL Board Member
KAREN DIEHL Treasurer
ANN MARIE BAKER Board Member
ROSALIE HARVEY Board Member
LINDA ABRAMSON 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
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
31 / 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: program score sits 21 points below the peer median (5 vs. 26).

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.

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.