Holiday with Heart Charity Gayla
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 260869183
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- Toledo, OH, USA
- Phone
- 4198898785
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $50,380
- Expenses
- $45,061
- Assets
- $276,723
- Liabilities
- $19,914
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
People named in this filing
- Jack Howard (Director)
- Rick Cornet (Director)
- Mike Crandall (Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Organizations primary purpose: Holiday with Heart Charity Gayla has an annual dinner-dance with cocktails, hors d'oeuvres, and entertainment annually in early December. Income is from guest ticket sales and net income from sponsors. Funds are donated to non-profit organizations who provide support and services for the LGBTQ+ community. The organizations and their respective programs and services, may vary from year-to-year. Holiday With Heart Charity Gayla also has a donor advised fund, Holiday With Heart Fund, with the Greater Toledo Community Foundation from which donations may be made in future years. All donations are usually paid early in the following year after the banquet, eg. 2024 donations were from 2023 income.
What it reported doing in 2025
Lenawee Community Foundation $830.00; Kaleidoscope Youth Center $3,715.00; Monarch Grief Center $5,000.00; Solace Health and Wellness $4,000.00; The NASW Foundation Inc $6,055.00; UT Foundation $10,000.00; UT Alumni Association $3,000.00; EqualityToledo, Inc. $5,280.00; The Collective $4,950.00.
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 96% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 55
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88.5%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 99%; rating input score 99
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 60.8%; rating input score 61; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 10.6%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.14; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 18.9% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 102.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 88.5% of revenue deployed · 99% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $45K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 43 of 44 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.