Valley Presbyterian Hospital

Legal name: Valley Presbyterian Hospital Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
901119606
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2017
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Van Nuys, CA, US
Phone
(818) 782-6600
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Hospitals and Related Primary Medical Care Facilities
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,317,294
Expenses
$1,839,997
Assets
$3,386,551
Liabilities
$988,275

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GUSTAVO VALDESPINO (BOARD MEMBER/VPH PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • PEGI MATSUDA (PRESIDENT VPHF (THRU 06/18))

Highest reported compensation

  • GUSTAVO VALDESPINO (BOARD MEMBER/VPH PRESIDENT & CEO): $1,071,695 total reported compensation
  • PEGI MATSUDA (PRESIDENT VPHF (THRU 06/18)): $604,554 total reported compensation
  • JANICE KLOSTERMEIER (SVP OF FINANCE & CFO): $218,178 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support Valley Presbyterian Hospital in its mission to provide high-quality, compassionate healthcare to the San Fernando Valley community.

What it reported doing in 2017

Valley presbyterian hospital foundation (vphf) raises funds for valleypresbyterian hospital (vph) through private philanthropy and specialfundraising events (the 4th annual celebration of excellence eventwas held on may 17th, 2018 and the golf classic was held onseptember 24, 2018). Gifts received through vphf provide vphwith the vital support it needs to continue to provide comprehensivehealth care, social services, and advocacy for san fernando valley'slow-income and underserved families. The following are a few of thevph programs supported through donations received by vphf in2018: emergency room rennovation project; palliative careprogram; child life specialist program; diabetes in-patienteducation and treatment program; and community and healthprogessions educations programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.5%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $45.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 22nd 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; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -39.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.84; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.6%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -122.5% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -146.3% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -14.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2016 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.