Society of American Indian Dentist Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205966903
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Carson City, NV, USA
Phone
5053071188
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Reported finances

Revenue
$677,336
Expenses
$540,549
Assets
$674,311
Liabilities
$275,055

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Adrian Sandoval (President)
  • Tamana Begay (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Janice Morrow (Ex Director/ Consultant): $58,933 total reported compensation
  • Francis Kim (Employee): $47,538 total reported compensation
  • Jandra Korb (Treasurer/Interim Director): $15,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Society of American Indian Dentists (SAID) is a national, non-profit organization of oral health professionals and students dedicated to promoting and improving the oral health of the American Indian/Alaska native community and providing advocacy for the Indian/Alaska native community and providing advocacy for the American Indian/Alaska Native dental professionals across the US.

What it reported doing in 2025

Scholarship and support to American Indians to further their education in Dentistry Including advertising and recruiting to get other American Indians to get into Dentistry

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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

MIXED - Program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 46
  • Accountability: 31
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.1%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 66.5%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.2%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.25; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.3% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.1% of revenue deployed · 66.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $359K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $59K · 8 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 29 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.