Good Samaritan Foundation
Legal name: The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 460422866
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Sioux Falls, South Dakota, United States
- Phone
- 6053623100
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Christianity
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $10,218,982
- Expenses
- $9,507,010
- Assets
- $102,208,723
- Liabilities
- $1,320,689
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BILL GASSEN (TRUSTEE, PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- BILL GASSEN (TRUSTEE, PRESIDENT & CEO): $4,999,360 total reported compensation
- SCOTT WOOTEN (EVP, CFO (END 4/24)): $2,576,428 total reported compensation
- NICK OLSON (EVP, CFO (BEG 4/24)): $1,171,262 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 care, comfort and cure. Our Vision To be the premier rural health system in the United States. Our Values. Good Samaritan is an affiliate of Sanford Health. Sanford Health is the largest and fastest-growing nonprofit rural health system in the U.S. dedicated to the work of health and healing. The Good Samaritan team The heart of our organization has always been people. Our team consists of caregivers, leaders, volunteers and supporters, all of who believe in our mission. Together, we’re committed to sharing God’s love through the work of health, healing and comfort.
What it reported doing in 2024
The foundation is helping transform the aging experience by inspiring and facilitating philanthropic investment and community engagement around the society, the nation's largest nonprofit provider of senior housing and services. 100% of every dollar raised supports local priorities of society locations, such as staff education, health and wellness equipment and technology, and services that enhance the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of people as they age.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 72
- Sustainability: 69
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th 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: 7%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.75; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.5%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $9.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $5M · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $126K reported
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 46 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.