Charis Bible College

Legal name: Charis Bible College Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
815070331
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2022
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Woodland Park, CO, United States
Phone
+1 (844) 360-9577
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$21,683,289
Expenses
$29,979,689
Assets
$1,336,232
Liabilities
$20,796,383

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To train and equip individuals to carry out the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In 1972, Andrew and Jamie were married and began teaching Bible studies together. Over the next six years, they pastored three small churches and had two sons, Joshua and Jonathan Peter. In 1976, Andrew broadcast his first Gospel Truth radio program, then founded Andrew Wommack Ministries in 1978. Before the turn of the century, God led Andrew to launch into television. “The Gospel Truth” aired its first program in January 2000 on the INSP network, with about 20 million subscribers. It was an instant hit. AWMI Logo With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Andrew began Charis Bible College in the fall of 1994. Now Andrew teaches across the country and the world through Conferences, Charis Bible.

What it reported doing in 2022

Charis Bible Colleges has over 1,000 students attending the main campus in Woodland Park, Colorado. Through its world outreach program, it has an additional 37 extension schools with over 950 students across the United States. In addition, Charis Bible Colleges has over 2,000 online and correspondence students. Charis Bible Colleges hosts both public educational events and student experience events. These events help offer a varied educational experience to students and foster greater relationships between the students and staff of the school.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 42
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93.7%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: -38.3%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 15.56; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.5%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 40.4% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -53.4% per year; rating input score 0; 0th 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 · 93.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $28.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $451K · 4 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.1M reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2021 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.