Nicaragua Baptist Missions

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455321119
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Culpeper, VA, USA
Phone
5403214400
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$451,137
Expenses
$286,622
Assets
$338,531
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • KENNETH VAN HOVEN (Executive Dir.)
  • MARK MANNING (Director)
  • GREGORY KEENE (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose for forming nbm was to continue the indigenous mission work begun by dr. Bob dayton in the county of nicaragua. The proposed method was to form an organization that could then raise funds to: 1. Support the bible institute located in nicaragua 2. Support national pastors as they started new churches in nicaragua and other countries 3. Support the building of new church buildings and facilities in nicaragua and other countries 4. Support the building of new school buildings

What it reported doing in 2024

Nbn supports almost twenty individual church plants in different parts of nicaragua and guatemala. The idea of a church plant support is to help the pastor and church during the initial years of growth until the church grows to a point of being able to support the pastor with no outside support. Each church plant has different needs, therefore the financial support is customized to meet the need.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. 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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 46
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.1%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 74.2%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 36.5%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.18; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.1% of revenue deployed · 74.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $213K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 20 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.