San Francisco Dental Society Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 941104624
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- San Francisco, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4159287337
- Rating
- 49
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $464,978
- Expenses
- $407,380
- Assets
- $1,518,195
- Liabilities
- $2,334
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Deborah Elam MS CAE (CEO non-voting)
- Vlad Shuster DMD (Past President)
- Erin Shah DDS (President)
- Irene V Hilton DDS MPH (President Elect)
Highest reported compensation
- Deborah Elam MS CAE (CEO non-voting): $152,936 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To support dental professionals throughout their careers and improve the oral health of our community.
What it reported doing in 2024
Coordination of local Society with State and National dental associations provide funding for elected society representatives to attend meetings, leadership training, and the CDA House of Delegates, the governing body of the California Dental AssociationProvide dental referral services to the public, responding to over 300 requests for dental services in 2024. Throughout 2024, hosted Dental Student information events for incoming freshmen and graduating dentists at two dental schools, Dugoni School of Dentistry and UCSF School of Dentistry Host job board services provided to dentists, auxiliaries either by phone, email or on-line to those seeking employment or employees in the dental health areas. Maintain an on-line presence through the SFDS Website, Facebook and Instagram to provide resources for members and to disseminate information to the public. Hosted Warriors WatchParty for Dental Students at Dugoni School of Dentistry for 200+ students with swag and prizes.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 89% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- 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: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- 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: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 12.4%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.73; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 37.5%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -42.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 17 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 11 of 13 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.