Equipped for Life Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261767553
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Wake Forest, NC, USA
Phone
9193980401
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protestant
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$122,931
Expenses
$99,238
Assets
$65,042
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID HORNER (CHIEF EXECUT): $39,221 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Equipped for life exists to glorify god by equipping christian leaders with biblical truth, spiritual insight and practical help so they may excel still more in ministry.

What it reported doing in 2025

Equipped for life exists to glorify god by equipping christian leaders with biblical truth, spiritual insight and practical help so they may excel in ministry. Efl accomplishes this through leading conferences and seminars, coaching, mentoring and consulting, as well as teaching. Flagship for missions provides outlets to support global missions partnerships. The equipping center offers consulting services, conference speaking, coaching and mentoring. The leadership toolbox provides articles, sermon notes, and books, while the school consulting program helps christian school leaders develop curriculum as well as mentor and equip teachers. In 2025, equipped for life consulted with numerous churches in the united states and one in ukraine, led multiple retreats, continued work on the development of a master in global leadership course for global life university in manila, consulted and spoke at conferences and seminars around the united states, and provided financial support to lutsk bible church and jordan evangelical theological seminary, and ukrainian baptist seminary, among others.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.8%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 69.1%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.52 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 49.1%; rating input score 49; 44th 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; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.3%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 39.5%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.2% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.8% of revenue deployed · 69.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $69K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $39K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.