Higher Education Servicing Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
751661098
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
Phone
8172659158
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Reported finances

Revenue
$36,047,569
Expenses
$13,765,035
Assets
$76,412,285
Liabilities
$2,562,050

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PHILLIP WAMBSGANSS (President)
  • KENNETH D WOODS (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • PHILLIP WAMBSGANSS (President): $439,785 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT LAMBERSON (EVP - IT & SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT): $339,877 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN MONTGOMERY (EVP - OPERATIONS): $232,228 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Hesc fosters quality servicing for student loans, encourages and promotes student enrollment at post-secondary level institutions. Hesc provides student loans and life of loan servicing and program administration of student loans under agreements with note holders including higher education authorities. Hesc is responsible for the reporting, collection and accounting for the loans. Hesc also administers educational outreach programs and services in north Texas.

What it reported doing in 2024

Servicing and administration of student loans and development of computer systems to service student loans on behalf of loan holders including the north Texas higher education authority.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 45
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.7%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 83.1%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 61.8%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.55; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.7% of revenue deployed · 83.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $11.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $440K · 15 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.1M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.