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
54
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
65
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Programmatic Contraction

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2022 54 Fragile Recovery
2021 35 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2020 42 Fragile Recovery
2019 29 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2018 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2017 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2014 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2013 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2012 27 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2011 23 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MITCHELL ATKINS Board President
LORI ATKINS Board President
BRITANY CALLAHAN Secretary
MICHELLE MCKENZIE Treasurer

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
BRITANY CALLAHAN Secretary
MICHELLE MCKENZIE Treasurer
MITCHELL ATKINS Board President
LORI ATKINS Board President
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
65 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
54 / 100
Stable

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: financial score sits 32 points above the peer median (65 vs. 33).

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 35 → 54 over 5 years (improving by 19 points). A multi-year directional move of this magnitude is a signal worth investigating.

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.