Keck Medicine of USC
Legal name: Usc Verdugo Hills Hospital
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 851634852
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Jul 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
- Location
- Glendale, CA, US
- Phone
- 800-872-2273
- Rating
- 57
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Hospitals and Related Primary Medical Care Facilities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $190,053,764
- Expenses
- $237,681,597
- Assets
- $149,745,114
- Liabilities
- $246,017,896
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
27 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ARMAND DORIAN MD (DIRECTOR/CEO & PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- INDERBIR SINGH GILL MD (DIRECTOR (AS OF 3/4/25)): $3,141,326 total reported compensation
- ROD HANNERS (DIRECTOR): $2,498,697 total reported compensation
- JOSEPH OUZOUNIAN MD (DIRECTOR): $1,204,321 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
See schedule o
What it reported doing in 2024
Health care services: to establish, equip, maintain, and operate nonprofit usc verdugo hills hospital, as part of the integrated health care system of the university of southern California. Continued in schedule o.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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
MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 60
- Transparency & Controls: 53
- Accountability: 54
- Sustainability: 18
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 58.3%; rating input score 58
- 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: 10.5%; rating input score 10; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 43.8%; rating input score 44; 12th 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: -25.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.64; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.8%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 28.2% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 73% of revenue deployed · 58.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $138.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $3.1M · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $14.6M reported
- Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 31 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 44/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 10/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.