Hampton University
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 540505990
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2013
- Location
- Hampton, VA, USA
- Phone
- 757-727-5000
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- University or Technological Institute
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $245,688,438
- Expenses
- $249,506,433
- Assets
- $899,810,315
- Liabilities
- $217,175,635
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LTG DARRELL K WILLIAMS (PRESIDENT)
- MR ROBERT POMPEYMARCH - JUNE 2025 (VICE PRESIDENT FOR BUSINES)
- ATTORNEY FAYE HARDY-LUCAS (VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL)
- MR ADEBISI OLADIPUPO (VICE PRESIDENT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY)
- MR CHARLES CANSLER III END MARCH (VICE PRESIDENT FOR BUSINES)
Highest reported compensation
- LTG DARRELL K WILLIAMS (PRESIDENT): $1,093,158 total reported compensation
- MRS BETTY STEWART (EXECUTIVE VP AND PROVOST): $430,885 total reported compensation
- MR IVAN THOMAS (MEN'S BASKETBALL HEAD COACH): $430,878 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
At Hampton University School of Religion, our mission is to offer a transformative experience that enriches one’s knowledge of faith and spirituality while equipping students for a lifetime of dedicated service.
What it reported doing in 2024
Hampton university proton therapy institute (hupti) - the university owns and operates a facility that provides proton therapy treatment as a cutting-edge technology in the fight against cancer and provide opportunities for research.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 72% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
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: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 97
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.5%; rating input score 83
- Program expense ratio: 75.8%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: $54.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.61; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 83.5% of revenue deployed · 75.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 20 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $189.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 29 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $57.5M reported
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 11 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.