Hand County Health & Wellness Community Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 800223699
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Miller, SD, USA
- Phone
- 6058530368
- Rating
- 58
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,930,242
- Expenses
- $33,165
- Assets
- $3,054,383
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MATT CAMPION (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- MATT CAMPION (PRESIDENT)
- TIFFANY HOFER (TREASURER/SE)
- AMY HOWARD (MEMBER)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Public support for health care & recreation.
What it reported doing in 2025
St. Lawrence cares is a brand new organization in st. Lawrence, South Dakota. The group was founded in may of 2021 by four very community-minded residents, shelby wieseler, andrea mushitz, jansen naber, and hannah caffee. These four individuals all had the same dream in mind: to make their small town the very best it can be. Their mission is simple, complete community based projects that are focused on the future. Through this mission, the goal of st. Lawrence cares is to make the st. Lawrence community as welcoming as possible for families of all sizes, children of all ages, and visitors from near and far. To meet their goal, the first undertaking of the organization is to work with local community members in st. Lawrence, as well as miller, to install a safe, fun, and easy to access playground. St. Lawrence cares is joining forces with the local community to come together and build a new playground. The area will benefit from this playground with local children finally having a safe, close to home and central place to grow and play. The intended playground is much needed in our community and features multiple installations to make it welcoming and inviting for all children and families. There currently is no easy to access communal play equipment for kids in our town. The nearest alternative for any kind of play equipment is just over 3 miles away, in the neighboring city of miller, at their local park or elementary school. This playground is highly supported by local citizens and business owners alike. It will bring families together and have longterm positive impacts in the community. Most directly served by this playground, will be the residents of the st. Lawrence community, both those within and out of city limits. Indirectly, this project also benefits miller children and families who frequently come to st. Lawrence to dine, do business, or simply visit.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 86% of its reported program spending out as grants.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 30
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 98
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 1.2%; rating input score 1
- Program expense ratio: 89%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 92.1%; rating input score 92; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 98.9%; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 92.1; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 49.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 53.2% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 1.2% of revenue deployed · 89% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $30K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 1/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.