Stanford Medicine Children's Health
Legal name: Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 770003859
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Jun 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Palo Alto, CA, USA
- Phone
- (650) 497-8000
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Hospital, Specialty
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,890,101,302
- Expenses
- $2,734,866,795
- Assets
- $4,874,750,628
- Liabilities
- $1,640,836,483
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
42 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PAUL KING (Dir., Pres & CEO)
- CHANTAL VOLEL-TORRES (SVP & CAO PHY PRAC/CEO PCHA)
- MELANIE DAVIDSON (VICE PRESIDENT & CONTROLLER)
Highest reported compensation
- DAVID ENTWISTLE (DIRECTOR): $5,385,633 total reported compensation
- LLOYD B MINOR MD (Director): $3,727,284 total reported compensation
- PAUL KING (Dir., Pres & CEO): $2,338,281 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Providing expertise, innovation and world-class care. Way to give Find out about the many ways you can support our hospital and patients Bring hope and healing to more patients and their families Visit the Lucile Packard Foundation for more information. Our Vision To heal humanity through science and compassion, one child and family at a time. Our Mission. A graduate of the Stanford University School of Medicine, Dr. Leonard returned to Stanford Medicine in 2014 after spending 25 years at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania. At Stanford, her multidisciplinary research program is focused on the impact of chronic diseases on bone metabolism and nutrition across the life span. Dr. Leonard directs the innovative and trans-disciplinary child and maternal health research and training initiatives of the Stanford Maternal & Child Health Research...
What it reported doing in 2024
Program service description johnson center expense $647,083,998 grants $0 revenue $658,334,305 the johnson center's services include prenatal diagnosis, genetic counseling, high resolution fetal ultrasound services, high risk prenatal care, delivery, lactation and parenting support and newborn intensive care. In addition, the behavioral-developmental pediatrics program offers long term follow-up for patients graduating from the neonatal intensive care unit. The johnson center also manages several clinical outreach services in maternal-fetal medicine, providing early diagnosis and consultative services for high-risk maternity care throughout the region, including redwood city, mountain view, fremont, salinas, modesto, and santa cruz. Additionally, the fertility and reproductive health services were added to the johnson center in fy15. These services run the spectrum of iui, ivf, multiple pregnancy loss, and male fertility factor considerations. The johnson center continues to lead in the development and evaluation of simulation training, both in the laboratory and on-site. Simulation training provides staff and the community an opportunity to learn in a supported environment. In fiscal year 2025, there were 5,653 obstetric discharges from the johnson center and the average length of stay for obstetric patients was 3.5 days. Obstetric patients from the primary service area counties of san mateo and santa clara accounted for 82 percent of cases, 15 percent of patients came from the surrounding bay area counties, and 3 percent from the remaining California counties and out of state. Neonatology served a total of 1,178 inpatient discharges in fiscal year 2025 with an average length of stay of 18.0 days. Of these inpatients, 59 percent were from the primary service area, 35 percent from the surrounding bay area counties, and 6 percent from the remaining California counties and out of state.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 95% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.
- 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 78
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 86.3%; rating input score 86
- Program expense ratio: 91%; rating input score 91
- Fundraising efficiency: $3.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 97.9%; rating input score 98; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 76.2%; rating input score 76; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 5.4%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.78; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.6%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 86.3% of revenue deployed · 91% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.5B in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $5.4M · 42 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $369.7M reported
- Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 13 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 44 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 86 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.