Howard Payne University
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 750800653
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Brownwood, TX, USA
- Phone
- 325-649-8020
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- University or Technological Institute
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $46,035,773
- Expenses
- $38,486,059
- Assets
- $147,989,161
- Liabilities
- $10,512,651
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
42 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR CORY HINES (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DR CORY HINES (PRESIDENT): $356,476 total reported compensation
- MIKE RODGERS (CFO/VP FINANCE & ADMIN (PART YEAR)): $156,349 total reported compensation
- DR DALE MEINECKE (VP FOR DEVELOPMENT): $144,868 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Howard Payne University is a Christ-centered academic community dedicated to excellence by developing and equipping the whole person for intellectual inquiry, personal and professional integrity, and service to God and humanity.
What it reported doing in 2024
Student services: hpu is committed to providing students with a wide range of opportunities for learning within and beyond the classroom. Student engagement in campus life is designed to help students grow in relationship to christ, develop leadership skills, build relationships, participate in service to the campus and community, exhibit personal responsibility, and have fun. These services include admissions, athletics/intramurals, baptist student ministry, chapel, cheerleading, the collegium (tutoring, academic testing, advising, career services and learning assistance), counseling and health services, hpu's department of public safety, financial aid, the food and essentials pantry, the library, mail services, new-student orientation, residence life, student activities, student conduct, student government, student organizations, the wellness center, the jacket closet, and more.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 62% for direct work, and 38% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 96
- Sustainability: 77
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73.6%; rating input score 74
- Program expense ratio: 83.2%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 95%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Pass
- 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: 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: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th 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: 16.4%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.85; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 73.6% of revenue deployed · 83.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 28 of 30 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $32M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $356K · 42 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4M reported
- Consistency: 41 of 42 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 46/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.