Gospelink

Legal name: Gospelink Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582390166
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2020
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Forest, VA, United States
Phone
(434) 485-7007
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,408,729
Expenses
$3,836,750
Assets
$2,017,430
Liabilities
$129,124

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Stephen Nelms (President and Chairman of Board)

Highest reported compensation

  • Stephen Nelms (President and Chairman of Board): $102,500 total reported compensation
  • Lewis Nelms (Director): $99,000 total reported compensation
  • Charles Pace (Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer): $82,900 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Connecting God’s people to advance the Gospel. We believe that the gospel has not only eternal implications, but also present applications; it is holistic and, by its very nature, changes everything about our lives now and for eternity. It is our conviction that the local church is God’s instrument of change. With this belief at the forefront of everything we do, we partner with the global church to transform lives and communities through the redemptive and transforming power of the gospel. We focus our efforts with under reached and unreached people groups around the world. To achieve our mission we focus on Church planting, Education and Care programs. Our History.

What it reported doing in 2020

Gospelink assists the national missionaries through various training programs. One such program is a Bible college in Zambia which helps train the nationals. The Bible college trained over 100 students in 2020 despite the pandemic restrictions. Over 20 students graduated with their bachelors degrees. A medical clinic is also facilitated.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 82% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.4%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 86.2%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.6%; rating input score 99; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.4%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 75.4% of revenue deployed · 86.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $102K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.