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
35
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
40
Score
Program
5
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 Hidden Hidden — 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2022 — — — 42 Fragile Decline Risk
2021 — — — 30 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 — — — 41 Financially Distressed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Meredith Woodend Board President —
Gregory Warren Board President —
Lianne Coble-Dispensa Secretary —
Patrick Miller Treasurer —
Edward Hanlon Board Member —
Nathan Carlisle Board Member —
Rachele Schmiege Board Member —
Chelsea Shephard Board Member —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Meredith Woodend Board President —
Gregory Warren Board President —
Lianne Coble-Dispensa Secretary —
Patrick Miller Treasurer —
Edward Hanlon Board Member —
Elizabeth Sciblo Board Member —
Nathan Carlisle Board Member —
Meredith Woodend Board President —
Gregory Warren Board President —
Lianne Coble-Dispensa Secretary —
Patrick Miller Treasurer —
Edward Hanlon Board Member —
Elizabeth Sciblo Board Member —
Nathan Carlisle Board Member —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
40 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
5 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
35 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 806 other orgs in NY with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 31 points below the peer median (40 vs. 71).

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 41 → 35 over 4 years (declining by 6 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.