William Carey University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
640329300
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Hattiesburg, MS, US
Phone
(601) 318-6051
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$125,135,364
Expenses
$108,259,767
Assets
$294,419,547
Liabilities
$53,046,796

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

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BENJAMIN C BURNETT (PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION; PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • DANIEL P CALDWELL (FORMER VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS , AND PROVOST)
  • GRANT GUTHRIE (VICE PRESIDENT FOR BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND CHEIF FINANCIAL OFFICER)
  • NOAL B COCHRAN (PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION; VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, AND PROVOST)
  • JANET K WILLIAMS (PROFESSOR OF NURSING; VICE PRESIDENT, COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES)

Highest reported compensation

  • ITALO R SUBBARAO (PROFESSOR OF CLINICAL SCIENCES AND DEAN OF COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE): $557,329 total reported compensation
  • BENJAMIN C BURNETT (PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION; PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $333,614 total reported compensation
  • TIFFANY L WORTHINGTON (ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF CLINICAL SCIENCES AND ASSOCIATE DEAN OF CLINICAL SCIENCES): $282,604 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

William Carey University is a Christian university which seeks to provide high quality education within the context of biblical faith and to prepare students to become responsible citizens, lifelong learners, and servant leaders.

What it reported doing in 2024

Auxiliary enterprises include dining, housing, and athletics. Auxiliary programs provide housing and dining services for the students who need or want to live on campus. The athletic programs encourage loyalty to the university and a sense of unity among students and faculty. In providing these programs, the university encourages the exercise of student talent, which enhances the learning experiences of the students involved.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 83% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% 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 filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.5%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.5%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.72; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 76.5% of revenue deployed · 87.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $94.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $557K · 35 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $18.6M reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.