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
45
Score
Financial
50
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

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

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2022 15.3% 34 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2021 30.9% 20 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2020 15.8% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 25.8% 19 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2018 26.4% 31 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2017 24.9% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2016 24.6% 26 Critical Intervention Needed Gov Risk
2015 16.4% 40 Fragile Recovery
2014 17.7% 37 Fragile Stable Watch
2013 12.3% 39 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
FRANCOIS PERRON Board Member 62.2% of Rev
RAEMAN KILFOIL Treasurer
BRIAN GUGGIANA Secretary
MOHAMMAD ULLAH Board President

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
FRANCOIS PERRON Board President 113.9% of Rev
JUSTIN DAVIS Secretary
LAWRENCE SCHILLER Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
50 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
45 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 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 699 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 24 points below the peer median (5 vs. 29).

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 31 → 34 over 5 years (improving by 3 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Separate signing authority from fundraising authority when both are held by one person — removes the concentration penalty (~12 points).

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