St. Louis Children's Hospital

Legal name: St Louis Children's Hospital Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431626863
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St. Louis, MO, US
Phone
800.678.5437
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$159,135,119
Expenses
$42,478,077
Assets
$631,662,954
Liabilities
$120,059,810

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

Leadership & pay

34 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LOLLO TRISHA (PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LOLLO TRISHA (PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR): $1,129,090 total reported compensation
  • WASKIEWICZ TANYA (VP, CHIEF DEV OFFICER): $547,287 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To do what’s right for kids.

What it reported doing in 2024

Capital, scholarships, workforce education, faculty education/development, patient education, external community grants, chairholders, and other: the st. Louis children's hopsital foundation provided funds for capital equipment and construction/renovations. The foundation also provides funding for angel eye cameras in the neonatal intensive care unit so that families can be part of their child's care even when away from the bedside. St. Louis children's hospital foundation supported education for physicians, r.n.s, technicians, and healthcare administrators through fellowships, awards, lectures, and conferences. By providing continuing education, the foundation assists st. Louis children's hospital and Washington university school of medicine with maintaining it's professional and quality standards. The foundation additionally supported multiple endowed chairs at Washington university school of medicine.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 92
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 32.9%; rating input score 33
  • Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 97%; rating input score 97; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 73.3%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.87; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 32.9% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 33 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $32.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 34 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 42 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 33/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.