God's Word for the Nations

Legal name: God's Word for the Nations Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208239246
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Rolla, MO, US
Phone
(573) 426-3621
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protestant
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,475,217
Expenses
$1,502,026
Assets
$302,199
Liabilities
$156,833

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • VITALY VOINOV (BOARD MEMBER/DIRECTOR): $43,200 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Advancing God’s Kingdom by communicating His Word in the heart language of all people. The family’s move back to the United States in 2000 marked a new era in their support of international missions work. They founded a homeschool curriculum company that uses the majority of its proceeds to support Bible translation around the world. God’s Word for the Nations was started in 2003 to assist like-minded individuals, families, churches, and businesses in providing needed finances for Bible translation around the world. Since that time God’s Word for the Nations has been blessed to be able to provide over two million dollars in funding. Working with Others.

What it reported doing in 2025

God's word for the nations (gwn) focuses on the translation, publication and printing of bibles, particularly in russia, east asia, africa, europe & pacific. The intent is to produce bibles that are exegetically accurate, understood and accepted by the communities for which these translations are prepared. Gwn accomplishes this purpose primarily by the making of grants and allocations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 98.5%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: $151.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th 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: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 87%; rating input score 87; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st 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: -1.8%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st 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: 100% of revenue deployed · 98.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $43K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.