Delta Dental of South Dakota Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911776857
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Pierre, SD, USA
Phone
6052247345
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,384,519
Expenses
$3,719,185
Assets
$9,587,271
Liabilities
$809,647

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFF MILLER (DDSD PRES-CEO/OFFICER)
  • SCOTT JONES (PRESIDENT OF FOUNDATION)
  • MONTY BECHTOLD DDS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFF MILLER (DDSD PRES-CEO/OFFICER): $683,588 total reported compensation
  • SCOTT JONES (PRESIDENT OF FOUNDATION): $342,820 total reported compensation
  • MONTY BECHTOLD DDS (VICE PRESIDENT): $21,913 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To initiate, collaborate and/or support programs that increase access to care, ensure an adequate dental work force and prevent dental disease.

What it reported doing in 2025

$179,702 has been contributed to 501(c)(3) organizations, governmental entities and other organizations with an interest in furthering dental research education & services to disadvantaged populations. Additional assistance provided include a) $290,000 has been advanced through the fund loan repayment for service program, b) $61,200 in continuing education certificates were issued and c) $123,764 contributed to education & prevention activities for assisting disadvantaged children.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $29.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 14th 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: 97.7%; rating input score 98; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.58; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.7%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $684K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $2.2M reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.