ADA Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
366132046
IRS 990 coverage
2008–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3124402500
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,133,662
Expenses
$2,965,251
Assets
$16,690,816
Liabilities
$230,583

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Raymond A Cohlmia DDS (ADAF Director/ADA Executive Director)
  • Robert J Zinn (ADAF Treasurer/ADAVice President, Accounting & Reporting)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dr Raymond A Cohlmia DDS (ADAF Director/ADA Executive Director): $870,723 total reported compensation
  • Dr Elizabeth A Shapiro DDS (ADAF Secretary/ADAChief of Gov & Strategy Mgmt): $502,038 total reported compensation
  • Robert J Zinn (ADAF Treasurer/ADAVice President, Accounting & Reporting): $274,146 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The ada foundation provides charitable assistance for the dental community and works to improve oral health by supporting access to care, research and education programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Charitable assistance: provide charitable assistance to the dental community and their families in need. This includes providing relief grants to aid members of the dental profession and their dependants who, because of accidental injury, advanced age, physically delibitating illness or a medical condition prevents them from being gainfully employed, resulting in the inability to be wholly self-sustaining.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, and 58% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 24.9%; rating input score 25; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -39%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.63; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.1%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $871K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 34 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2008 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 14 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.