Programmatic Contraction
Programmatic Contraction
Programmatic Contraction Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Developing
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
48
Score
Governance
42
Score
Financial
75
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 26.2% 48 Governance-Stressed Recovery
2019 47 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2018 47 Fragile Decline Risk
2017 47 Fragile Stable Watch
2016 51 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Shannon Lashley Gillen Board President 26.2% of Rev
Amanda Phelan Board President
Tom Lipinski Treasurer
Pam Pietro Board Member
Stephanie Tooman Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
75 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
42 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
48 / 100
Developing

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 45 other orgs in MI with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 32 points above the peer median (75 vs. 43).

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 51 → 48 over 5 years (declining 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).
  2. Reduce top-officer compensation from 26.2% to under 22% of revenue — would move governance score by ~8 points.

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