Children's Dental Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
410857929
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6127461530
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,836,852
Expenses
$9,113,772
Assets
$27,594,969
Liabilities
$627,574

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAVON LEE (PRESIDENT)
  • SARAH WOVCHA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARAH WOVCHA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $401,364 total reported compensation
  • HUDA IBRAHIM (DENTIST): $195,101 total reported compensation
  • PHUONG DO (DENTAL DIRECTOR): $190,983 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Since 1919, childrens dental services has been dedicated to improving the oral health of children from families with low incomes by providing accessible treatment and education in our diverse community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Over 39,000 low-income children and pregnant women were provided dental treatment and prevention education in 72 underserved Minnesota counties, targeting disadvantaged and high-risk communities with interventions including culturally-focused care, opioid prevention, medical-dental integration, telehealth and novel use of workforce. Cds operated two robust clinics out of the twin cities region and opened its new 10-operatory clinic in a building it renovated in the duluth historic commercial district. Dental care was provided monday through saturday each week, except during 9 holidays. Dental outreach and education was provided at over 700 community-based locations across Minnesota.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 72% 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.

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.2%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 91.7%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.03; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.2% of revenue deployed · 91.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $401K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $2.2M reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.