The Foundation for Dental Laboratory Technology Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262381417
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Tallahassee, FL, USA
Phone
8009501150
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$166,163
Expenses
$228,157
Assets
$376,099
Liabilities
$94,898

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BENNETT NAPIER CAE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • KURTIS HELM CDT (DIRECTOR AT LARGE)
  • NICOLAS AZAR (FISCAL OFFICER)
  • BETH COLLINGTON (CHAIR)

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

The purpose of the foundation is to advance the profession of dental laboratory technology by developing educational curriculum and programs that will be relevant and accessible to dental technicians and other members of the dental team.

What it reported doing in 2025

Grants - the mark jackson memorial education grant provides dental laboratory technicians with funds to help them further their educational goals related to higher level dental laboratory technology education. The total amount of mark jackson memorial education grant awarded in 2025 was $4,000. The scdl business enterprise education grant awards one individual $4,000 to supplement expenses related to business management continuing education the recipients wish to attend (i.e., nadl university, chamber courses, finance courses, etc.) $4,000 in scdl business enterprise education grants were awarded during 2025. The scdl component business education grant awards one recipient $1,000 for state and regional dental laboratory associations to help fund business management continuing education offerings (i.e., speaker for annual meeting). The cdt hardship grant is to assist cdts experiencing a hardship with their annual cdt renewal fee of $170. The total amount of cdt hardship grants awarded in 2025 was $1,190. The foundation offered the nadl university grant, which covered tuition for two individuals, and provided a $400 grant for another individual, to attend the 2025 nadl university. The total amount awarded was $3,390. In 2025, the foundation provided the national association of dental laboratories (nadl) a monetary grant totaling $20,000 to continue assisting in their occupational awareness campaign. The total amount of vision 21 grants awarded in 2025 was $4,515. The nadl leadership grant awarded a total of $1,980 of grants in 2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 60% for direct work, and 40% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 83.1%; rating input score 83; 52nd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: -37.3%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.65; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $193K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.