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

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 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2021 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2020 34 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2019 34.2% 32 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2018 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2017 31 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2016 35 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JOE QUINTERO Executive Director
ADAM ROSS KALESPERIS Treasurer
VINCENT ESTRADA Board Member
TATYANA YASSUKOVICH Board Member
MARLENE FORTE Board Member

Tax year 2021

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
JOE QUINTERO Executive Director 6,521.7% of Rev
ADAM ROSS KALESPERIS Treasurer 6,521.7% of Rev
VINCENT ESTRADA Board Member
TATYANA YASSUKOVICH Board Member
MARLENE FORTE 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 829 other orgs in CA with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: program score sits 27 points below the peer median (5 vs. 32).

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 → 35 over 5 years (stable by 0 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.