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
44
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
55
Score
Program
5
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 44 Financially Distressed Recovery
2018 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 43 Financially Distressed Recovery
2015 35 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2014 39 Financially Distressed Stable Watch
2013 43 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2012 55 Fragile Stable Watch
2011 53 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Lauren Raynor Board President
Bryan Huffman Board Member
Molly Bell Treasurer
David Guinn Secretary
Darrell Brown Board President
Wanda Bellow Board Member
Jere Mason Board Member
Jessica Hernandez Board Member
Jesse Hernandez Board Member
Chris Elzie Board Member
Rob Witherington Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
55 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
44 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 45 other orgs in TN with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 31 points below the peer median (5 vs. 36).

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 → 44 over 5 years (improving by 5 points).

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.