Point University

Legal name: Point University Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
586044761
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
West Point, GA, USA
Phone
(706) 385-1000
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$38,501,946
Expenses
$41,748,601
Assets
$36,966,671
Liabilities
$23,754,458

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Dean C Collins (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dr Dean C Collins (President): $283,027 total reported compensation
  • Mr Stephen T Weaver (Professor - Business): $169,005 total reported compensation
  • Ms Stacey A Bartlett (Chief of Staff): $129,159 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Point University exists to educate students for Christ-centered service and leadership throughout the world.

What it reported doing in 2024

Point University offers associate degree programs, bachelors degree programs, masters degree programs, and certificate programs in the academic areas of biblical studies and ministry, business and leadership, social and behavioral sciences and human services, education, humanities, music, biology, and exercise and health sciences. Not all academic areas are offered at all levels. Over 2,000 students are enrolled in the residential program at West Point, the online program, and off-site locations in Peachtree City and Savannah, Georgia.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 74% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, and 43% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.1%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -8.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.64; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 91.1% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $35.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $283K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.8M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.
  • 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: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.