St. Francis Medical Center

Legal name: St Francis Medical Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
720408970
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Phone
2259232701
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospital, General
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$519,451,851
Expenses
$488,752,277
Assets
$394,383,428
Liabilities
$260,927,624

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Thomas J Gullatt MD (President/CEO)
  • Kristin Wolkart (Former President/FMOLHS CNO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Michael Gleason (FMOLHS CFO): $1,761,293 total reported compensation
  • Nauman Khalid MD (Physician): $1,532,226 total reported compensation
  • Sarah Ahmad MD (Physician): $1,273,525 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

As a nonprofit, mission-focused Catholic healthcare ministry, we give special attention to our citizens who are most in need.

What it reported doing in 2024

St. Francis medical center provides quality hospital and medical services primarily to residents of northeast Louisiana. The medical center is an active, caring member of the communities it serves. In carrying out its mission of meeting the healthcare needs of the people of god, the medical center has established a policy under which it provides care to needy members of its communities. The medical center provided 325 licensed beds, 92,371 inpatient days, 15,934 inpatient discharges, and 61,209 er visits in the year ended june 30, 2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 99% 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.

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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 78.4%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: 20.7%; rating input score 21; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 24th 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: Fail
    • 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: 5.9%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.81; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 75.2% of revenue deployed · 78.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $383.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.8M · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $81.5M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 38 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 21/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.