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
85
Score
Governance
85
Score
Financial
80
Score
Program
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
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 49 Fragile Recovery
2022 51 Fragile Recovery
2021 48 Fragile Decline Risk
2019 2.0% 55 Fragile Recovery
2018 52 Fragile Recovery
2017 48 Fragile Decline Risk
2016 4.1% 55 Fragile Recovery
2015 48 Fragile Recovery
2014 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 32 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 38 Financially Distressed Recovery
2011 34 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KATHRYN HOGAN Board Member
JESSICA KEIFER OFFICER
ROBERT RHYNEARSON OFFICER

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
KATHRYN HOGAN Board Member
JESSICA KEIFER OFFICER
ROBERT RHYNEARSON OFFICER
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
85 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
0 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
85 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 143 other orgs in US with NTEE prefix D5.

Most-divergent component: governance score sits 0 points above the peer median (85 vs. 85).

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

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

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