Programmatic Contraction
Programmatic Contraction
Programmatic Contraction Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Stable
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
52
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
80
Score
Program
15
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 52 Fragile Gov Risk
2022 55 Fragile Recovery
2021 51 Fragile Gov Risk
2020 50 Fragile Recovery
2019 19.7% 28 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2018 41.9% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2017 2.5% 51 Fragile Recovery
2016 4.3% 42 Fragile Recovery
2015 43 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2013 55 Fragile Recovery
2012 51 Fragile Recovery
2011 43 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
HANNAH TREUHAFT Board Member
KIMBERLY HOWARD Board Member
SAVANNAH BARRETT Secretary
LAURA ZABEL Board Member
DAMON MOSS MANAGING DIRECT
MICHAEL ROHD Chairman

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MICHAEL ROHD Chairman 40.3% of Rev
DAMON MOSS MANAGING DIRECT 16.7% of Rev
HANNAH TREUHAFT Board Member
KIMBERLY HOWARD Board Member
SAVANNAH BARRETT Secretary
LAURA ZABEL Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
80 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
52 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 699 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 49 points above the peer median (80 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 28 → 52 over 5 years (improving by 24 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

What's driving this score

What would change this score

No specific high-impact levers identified — this org's score is balanced across components.

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