Skip to content
California Pacific Medical Center Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

California Pacific Medical Center Foundation

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS.

$28M
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$26M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$174MInternational$25kCommunity Improvement$25kHuman Services$6k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $80k
  • $250k+4 grants · $28M
$339,236
Median grant
1
States reached
$539M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS$26,246,673
SUTTER BAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION$639,466
Sutter Health$339,236
Pacific Vision Foundation$309,880
PATIENT ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION$80,272
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY17–19, $83k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CATHOLIC CHARITIES CYO OF THE ARCHDIOCESE: $6k → 10%SUTTER VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION & HOSPICE: $35k → 12%SUTTER VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION & HOSPICE: $26k → 12%SUTTER VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION & HOSPICE: $17k → 12%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$170M · 7 repeat orgs$3.4M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +47% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
6

Total granted

$170M
$3.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+47%
+26%

Still filing today

100%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementPhilanthropyOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • SB
    SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS
    8× · 2017–2024 · $159M · revenue +84%
  • SB
    SUTTER BAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $8.2M · revenue +73%
  • SH
    SUTTER HEALTH
    3× · 2020–2024 · $933k · revenue +41%

Funded once

  • LS
    LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AT STANFORDgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $1.9M · revenue +26%
  • SW
    SUTTER WEST BAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $1.4M
  • IS
    INQUIRING SYSTEMS INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +213%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Sutter Valley Hospitals

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
2
Sutter Valley Medical Foundation

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: Caring for our patients first and our people always. VISION: To be the most comprehensive, integrated and connected health system for getting and staying well. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
3
Scripps Health

Founded in 1924 by philanthropist Ellen Browning Scripps, Scripps Health is a $4.9 billion, private not-for-profit integrated health system in San Diego, Ca. (see Sch O)

Health
4
California Pacific Medical Center Foundation

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
5
Sutter Coast Hospital

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
6
Sutter East Bay Medical Foundation

The mission of sutter east bay medical foundation is to enhance the health and well-being of people in the communities we serve through compassion and excellence. form 990, part iii, line 3 sutter east bay medical foundation merged into…

—
7
John Muir Health

The mission of john muir is to improve the health of the communities we serve with quality and compassion.

Health
8
Ucsf Health Community Hospitals Fka Saint Francis Memorial Hospital

Ucsf health community hospital's mission statement is caring, healing, teaching, and discovering.

Health
9
Sutter Medical Center Foundation

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
10
Southern California University of Health Sciences

The mission of southern california university of health sciences (scu) is to educate students as competent, caring and successful practitioners of integrative healthcare. the university is committed to providing excellence in academics,…

Education
11
Memorial Hospital Foundation

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

—
12
Sutter East Bay Hospitals

Mission statement: sutter east bay hospital's (sebh) mission is to enhance the well-being of people in the communities we serve through a not-for-profit commitment to compassion and excellence in health care services. form 990, part iii,…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sutter West Bay Medical Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Inquiring Systems Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

12 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 12 of the 13 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS: $158,557,075 · HealthSUTTER BAY HOSPITALSSUTTER BAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $8,164,431 · Health+5 more: $5,315,357 · HealthSUTTER WEST BAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $1,438,886 · Other+1 more: $10,000 · OtherSUTTER VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION AND HOSPICE: $77,439 · Human ServicesCATHOLIC CHARITIES CYO OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN FRANCISCO: $6,000 · Human ServicesINQUIRING SYSTEMS INC: $25,000 · Community ImprovementTIPPING POINT COMMUNITY: $25,000 · Philanthropy
Health$172,036,863Other$1,448,886Human Services$83,439Community Improvement$25,000Philanthropy$25,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSUTTER BAY HOSPITALS: $158,557,075 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetSUTTER BAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $8,164,431 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetLUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD: $1,893,517 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPACIFIC VISION FOUNDATION: $1,689,301 over 7y, 18% of budgetSUTTER WEST BAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $1,438,886 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSUTTER HEALTH: $932,592 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPATIENT ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION: $712,447 over 8y, 22% of budgetEND WELL FOUNDATION: $87,500 over 3y, 5.7% of budgetSUTTER VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION AND HOSPICE: $77,439 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetINQUIRING SYSTEMS INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetTIPPING POINT COMMUNITY: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCATHOLIC CHARITIES CYO OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN FRANCISCO: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO7.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization California Pacific Medical Center Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from California Pacific Medical Center Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 13 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on California Pacific Medical Center’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home