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
57
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
90
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

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 — — — 57 Fragile Stable Watch
2022 — — — 58 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — — 50 Fragile Recovery
2020 — — — 36 Fragile Recovery
2018 — — — 59 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Thomas Van Tassell Board President —
Keith Braithwaite Board President —
John Grzinich Treasurer —
Michael McIntosh Secretary —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Tom Van Tassell Board President —
Michael Mordicai Board President —
John C Grzinich Treasurer —
Michael McIntosh Secretary —

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Tom Van Tassell Board President —
Michael Mordicai Board President —
John Grzinich Treasurer —
Denny Malloy Secretary —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
90 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
57 / 100
Stable

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

Peer comparison

Compared to 358 other orgs in TX with NTEE prefix A2.

Most-divergent component: governance score sits 32 points below the peer median (50 vs. 82).

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 59 → 57 over 5 years (declining by 2 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.