Washington Dental Service Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911281990
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2065221300
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$22,668
Expenses
$25,878
Assets
$218,864
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ABDELLATIF VANETTA (PRES/CEO ARCORA FDN)

Highest reported compensation

  • RUTHERFORD EVE M (TRUSTEE - BRD. & DDS FEES): $1,347,828 total reported compensation
  • LOWRY-OAKES DIANE (CHIEF MISSION OFFICER): $606,364 total reported compensation
  • ABDELLATIF VANETTA (PRES/CEO ARCORA FDN): $534,724 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of the fund is to promote social welfare, including promoting the oral health of the public, and to sponsor and innovate for the advancement of oral health. The fund supports the mission of delta dental of Washington (ddwa) and Washington dental service (wds) by supporting access to oral health through a mobile clinic in underserved geographic areas, and through grants to support access to dental care for children.

What it reported doing in 2024

The fund supports dental care in underserved areas of Washington state through a program called the smilemobile; a 39 foot modern dental clinic on wheels that has been serving children in need across Washington state since 1995. The smilemobile was created to bring dental services - at little or no charge - directly to children who do not otherwise have access to dental care. Since it first hit the road, the mobile clinic has treated more than 45,000 children throughout the state.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 40

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: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 3rd 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: 93.7%; rating input score 94; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 25th 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: -14.2%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.46; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 708.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $26K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.3M · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.