Servant Life

Legal name: Servant Life Missions Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752982451
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Birmingham, AL, USA
Phone
1.800.772.2615
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Protestant
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,872,750
Expenses
$1,807,099
Assets
$617,733
Liabilities
$355,087

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Roger Davis (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Roger Davis (Executive Director): $46,092 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Servant Life mobilizes groups on gospel-centered, Christ-focused, short-term mission trips designed to support the strategic, long-term ministry of missionaries and churches around the world. Since its inception in 1999, Servant Life has been a mission-mobilizing ministry providing short-term mission trips for church and school groups. Our aim is to connect people's love for God to the nations through His Word and by His Spirit.

What it reported doing in 2025

Organize, train and send teams of individual American volunteers to different countries to conduct day camps for their children and teenagers of these countries in order to teach them English and Christian religious beliefs and relieve effects of poverty.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 92% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 56% for direct work, and 44% for 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 80
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.9%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 96.3%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • 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: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.9%; rating input score 99; 51st 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; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.5%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 92.9% of revenue deployed · 96.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 14 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.