Apple Tree Dental
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 363411437
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- New Brighton, MN, US
- Phone
- 7637847993
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $29,236,883
- Expenses
- $30,001,628
- Assets
- $20,433,532
- Liabilities
- $12,843,401
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MICHAEL HELGESON DDS (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- ALIASGHAR MOHEBBI (DENTIST): $527,031 total reported compensation
- NATHANIEL COOK (DENTIST): $264,036 total reported compensation
- MICHAEL HELGESON DDS (CEO): $225,170 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Apple Tree’s staff works to achieve its mission by delivering education, prevention, and restorative dental services to vulnerable populations and by providing leadership and innovation to transform the health care system.
What it reported doing in 2025
The apple tree innovation program stimulates creative change bydesigning, testing and building oral health care solutions that advanceoral health policy and practice through broad-based coalition buildingefforts. It also manufactures mobile dental offices for use by othernonprofit dental organizations.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 19
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 94.2%; rating input score 94
- Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: $9.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -2.6%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.63; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 94.2% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $27.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $527K · 19 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $1M reported
- Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.