Glendale Adventist Medical Center Fdtn Adventist Health Glendale Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953899682
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Glendale, CA, USA
Phone
8184098000
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospital, General
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,518,885
Expenses
$1,745,191
Assets
$12,356,718
Liabilities
$240,417

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

Leadership & pay

29 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LaBorde Elizabeth (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Issai Alice (Board Member): $1,210,992 total reported compensation
  • Cochran Elizabeth (Board Member): $761,348 total reported compensation
  • Bonner Robert (Treasurer): $724,736 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 Adventist Health Glendale Foundation was established to solicit and manage contributions for Adventist Health Glendale. Expenditure of Donor funds are made primarily to, or on behalf of Adventist Health Glendale.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Adventist Health Glendale Foundation provides a fundraising function to support the mission of Adventist Health Glendale and programs to improve the quality of life and health in our community. The funds are transferred to the hospital based on the grantors and donors intent. A significant portion of Management and General expenses are paid for by Adventist Health Glendale and accounted for as a department of the hospital in its support of the Foundation. The following story illustrates how Adventist Health Glendale is able to provide quality care for our community and why our Foundation has such a passion for raising funds to continue improving the care we can provide: My family history with breast cancer is long, Vanessa said. My aunts and sister have all had it. So, when I first felt a lump, I was scared.Adding to Vanessas fear was the fact that she was also 24 weeks pregnant. So, the first step in her journey to being diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, an aggressive and deadly form of the disease that requires chemotherapy, was a trip to her OB/GYN to determine the implications for her baby.Because Vanessa was pregnant, the first breast surgeon she visited for treatment would not take her case. He mentioned that he felt it was too risky, Vanessa explained. So, he referred me to another surgeon and then a third surgeon, and thats how I found my way to Dr. Holmes.Dennis Holmes, MD, world-renowned breast surgeon and medical director of the Breast Program at Adventist Health Glendale, was immediately struck by the emotion of the situation. This is a young lady with a potentially deadly breast cancer diagnosis who is trying to have a child, he said. There was this urgency to do something. Before I met Vanessa, it didnt seem like things were happening at an appropriate pace, which was concerning to me for a cancer that is likely to grow and spread if not treated early and effectively. The complexity of her situation bolstered our commitment to work with her.In addition to being pregnant, Vanessa was also found to carry the BRCA mutation, which increased her risk of cancer in both breasts. To receive the treatment she needed, Vanessa was faced with a terrible decision. Knowing that I might have to end the pregnancy way sooner was the scariest thing for me, she said. I just wanted my baby to be okay.Fortunately, Dr. Holmes, along with a team of experts who are knowledgeable in the coordination and management of pregnancy and cancer treatment, laid out a plan for the early but safe birth of Vanessas baby, along with rapid initiation of chemotherapy for her cancer. Baby Raven was born at 33 weeks and, although she had a rough start, she is now healthy and thriving. Vanessas treatment began two weeks later.I started chemotherapy first, and then I had surgery with Dr. Holmes at Adventist Health Glendale, she said. It was hard knowing that I had to have my breasts removed at this age [because of the BRCA mutation], but I could see that everyone was doing everything they could to make me comfortable. And I think its really important for us to know that at that moment, youre going to be safe and comfortable and its going to be okay.Breast cancer treatment is not an easy thing to go through, added Dr. Holmes. Especially for a young woman who is pregnant. Its important to remind women like Vanessa that getting through pregnancy and having a healthy baby are not the only goals theres a life to live after that, for both mom and baby.Today, Vanessa feels stronger after breast cancer treatment and enjoys life with Raven, now 11 months old, seven-year-old son Alexis and husband Juan. If I can get through this, I can get through anything, she said.Compassionate, high-quality patient care; life-saving and life-preserving medical and surgical services; advanced treatments in a community-based hospital; essential emergency services-these are the reasons we are in the Glendale community and why our Foundation raised funds for the Sam

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.6%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 72.8%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 30.7%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.08; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.6% of revenue deployed · 72.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 28 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.2M · 29 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and 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: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.