Tom Homann LGBTQ+ Law Association
Legal name: The Lutheran Home Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 410706147
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- San Diego, CA, United States
- Phone
- 9528736000
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $23,620,719
- Expenses
- $23,066,762
- Assets
- $24,706,866
- Liabilities
- $27,514,911
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARK HAYES (PRESIDENT &)
Highest reported compensation
- MARK HAYES (PRESIDENT &): $142,932 total reported compensation
- PATTY NARVESON (CONTROLLER): $123,966 total reported compensation
- RICK KRANT (ADMINISTRATO): $120,791 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
A LEGAL COMMUNITY THAT CARES. The Tom Homann LGBTQ+ Law Association is dedicated to the advancement of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer issues throughout California and the nation, as well as the protection of our communities. We are the place for San Diego’s LGBTQ+ and ally legal professionals to network, build friendships and develop their careers. THLA members are also committed to establishing and maintaining personal connections with the local law student community. Through our successful mentor program, we provide encouragement, guidance, insight, and friendship. Our annual events include our Awards Dinner, Networking events, Law Student Receptions, and participation in LavLaw, the nation’s largest co.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization through multiple locations provides a full range of services. These serivces include but are not limited to independent living services, assisted living services, skilled nursing services, long-term care, services to developmentally disabled adults, and rehabilitative service. With locations in Minnesota and Wisconsin we offer these services and the organiztion provided over 73,118 days of resident care and services in the current tax year.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 98% 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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 89
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 41
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73.6%; rating input score 74
- Program expense ratio: 75.5%; rating input score 75
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: Pass
- 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: 2.3%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.11; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 73.6% of revenue deployed · 75.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $17.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $143K · 12 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $296K reported
- Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 9 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.