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.
Title
Representative Institutions
Institutional Epochs
Historical Performance
| Year | Revenue | Top Comp | Comp % Rev | Score | Phase Label | Outlook | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | — | — | — | 42 | Financially Distressed | Decline Risk | |
| 2021 | — | — | — | 52 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2020 | — | — | — | 38 | Fragile | Recovery | |
| 2019 | — | — | — | 39 | Fragile | Decline Risk | |
| 2018 | — | — | — | 41 | Financially Distressed | Recovery | |
| 2017 | — | — | — | 26 | Critical Intervention Needed | Stable Watch |
Officer compensation history
Tax year 2023
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MELISSA BARAK | Board Member | — | ||
| CRAIG OLSEN | Chairman | — | ||
| RACHEL WEBER | Board President | — | ||
| VICTORIA YUST | Secretary | — | ||
| PETER GROSS | Board Member | — | ||
| ARADHNA TANEJA | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2022
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MELISSA BARAK | Artistic Director | — | ||
| CRAIG OLSEN | CHAIRMAN | — | ||
| RACHEL WEBER | Board President | — | ||
| VICTORIA YUST | Secretary | — | ||
| PETER GROSS | Board Member | — | ||
| ARADHNA TANEJA | Board Member | — |
Tax year 2021
| Name | Title | Phone | Compensation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MELISSA BARAK | Artistic Director | — | ||
| CRAIG OLSEN | CHAIRMAN | — | ||
| RACHEL WEBER | Board President | — | ||
| VICTORIA YUST | Secretary | — | ||
| PETER GROSS | Board Member | — | ||
| ARADHNA TANEJA | Board Member | — | ||
| LAURA BRECKENRIDGE | Board Member | — | ||
| SANDRA G GANENGISER | Board Member | — |
Score breakdown
The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →
Peer comparison
Compared to 830 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.
Most-divergent component: program score sits 16 points below the peer median (15 vs. 31).
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 → 42 over 5 years (improving by 1 points).
What's driving this score
- All-volunteer org with no paid officers — governance signal is neutral (default 50), not absent.
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.