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
25
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
10
Score
Program
15
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
2023 25 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2022 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2021 25 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2019 33 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2018 25 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2011 18 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Sonia Plumb Executive Director Hidden
Andrea Blesso Executive Director Hidden
Chloe Trotta Smith Executive Assistant Hidden
Claude Mayo Board President
Kim Stroud Board Of Directors
Uchenna Richards Board Of Directors
Claude Mayo Board President
UChenna Richards Board Member
Mary Badon Treasurer
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
10 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
25 / 100
Priority Review

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 130 other orgs in CT with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 29 points below the peer median (10 vs. 39).

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 33 → 25 over 5 years (declining by 8 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Build cash reserves to at least 3 months of operating expenses — moves financial resilience score meaningfully (~10 points).

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