American Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry Charitable Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391800450
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082228583
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Reported finances

Revenue
$222,109
Expenses
$203,006
Assets
$1,004,331
Liabilities
$21,589

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL DIFRISCO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU AUGUST))
  • BRADLEY J OLSON DDS FAACD FAGD (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (FROM AUG))

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL DIFRISCO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU AUGUST)): $241,271 total reported compensation
  • KATHRYN HILL (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (THRU AUG)): $174,532 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 american academy of cosmetic dentistry charitable foundation (aacdcf) assists in rebuilding the smiles and lives of adults who've suffered dental injuries from domestic and sexual violence, through compassionate cosmetic dental services and support programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Give back a smile - provides services to restore damaged smiles of adult survivors of domestic and sexual violence who have received dental injuries.during the current fiscal year the give back a smile program connected 71 new program applicants with volunteer dentists to have their smiles restored. 36 smile restorations were completed for a total value of $662,610 in donated dental services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 36
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.2%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 35.2%; rating input score 35
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.31 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 8.6%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.95; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 38.9%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.2% of revenue deployed · 35.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $71K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $241K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $173K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.