Lutheran Legacy Foundation

Legal name: Lutheran Legacy Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203142622
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Paris, IL, United States
Phone
217-463-8202
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,532,890
Expenses
$1,822,773
Assets
$84,835,040
Liabilities
$48,177,553

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS E PATCHETT (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JERRY L KLUG (DIRECTOR): $87,725 total reported compensation
  • MARK BLUHM (EXECUTIVE DI): $61,469 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTOPHER ELDREDGE (SECRETARY): $15,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

At the Lutheran Legacy Foundation our mission is to help you create meaningful, lasting legacies that nurture Christian faith and values for future generations. Our mission is to strengthen the future of Lutheranism by making endowment giving simple, accessible, and spiritually grounded. Brick Overlay Image. Individuals and ministries need to steward gifts that last. Through education, endowment development, and legacy planning, we equip Lutherans to give faithfully, grow wisely, and support the Church and Faith for future generations. We provide hands-on support for Lutheran schools, congregations, and seminaries, and more—and walk alongside donors as they craft plans that reflect their values. get started.

What it reported doing in 2024

Lutheran legacy foundation inc (llf) is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including making distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under sections 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code. The purpose of this corporation shall be to distribute funds to qualified charitable organizations consistent with the purposes of the corporation, subject to any limitations or restrictions stated in the instrument under which the donation is contributed to the corporation.

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 69% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $48.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 89%; rating input score 89; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 48.4%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 46.54; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.4%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 83.2% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $88K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 34 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 28 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.