The close of business on September 17, 2007, has been fixed as the record date for the Annual Meeting. Only stockholders of record as of that date will be entitled to notice of and to vote at said meeting and any adjournment or postponement thereof.

The accompanying form of Proxy is solicited by the Board of Directors of the Company. The attached Proxy Statement contains further information with respect to the business to be transacted at the Annual Meeting.

Monett, Missouri
September 28, 2007

This Proxy Statement and the enclosed proxy card (the Proxy) are furnished to the stockholders of Jack Henry & Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), in connection with the solicitation of Proxies by the Company's Board of Directors for use at the 2007 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, and any adjournment or postponement thereof (the Annual Meeting), to be held in the Company's Executive Conference Center, lower level (Building J-7) at the company headquarters, 663 Highway 60, Monett, Missouri, at 11:00 a.m., local time, on Tuesday, October 30, 2007. The mailing of this Proxy Statement, the Proxy, the Notice of Annual Meeting and the accompanying 2007 Annual Report to Stockholders is expected to commence on or about September 28, 2007.

The Board of Directors does not intend to bring any matters before the Annual Meeting except those indicated in the Notice and does not know of any matter which anyone else proposes to present for action at the Annual Meeting. If any other matters properly come before the Annual Meeting, however, the persons named in the accompanying form of Proxy, or their duly constituted substitutes, acting at the Annual Meeting, will be deemed authorized to vote or otherwise to act thereon in accordance with their judgment on such matters.

If the enclosed Proxy is properly executed and returned prior to voting at the Annual Meeting, the shares represented thereby will be voted in accordance with the instructions marked thereon. Each proposal, including the election of directors, will require the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of common stock voting in person or by Proxy at the Annual Meeting.

Any stockholder executing a Proxy retains the power to revoke it at any time prior to the voting of the Proxy. It may be revoked by a stockholder personally appearing at the Annual Meeting and casting a contrary vote, by filing an instrument of revocation with the Secretary of the Company, or by the presentation at the Annual Meeting of a duly executed later dated Proxy.

At the 2007 Annual Meeting, Stockholders will consider and vote upon:

Only stockholders of record at the close of business on September 17, 2007, the record date for the Annual Meeting, are entitled to notice of and to vote at such meeting.

The Company's authorized capital stock currently consists of 250,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share (the Common Stock), and 500,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $1.00 per share (the Preferred Stock). As of September 10, 2007, there were 89,359,256 shares of Common Stock outstanding and no shares of Preferred Stock outstanding. At such date, our executive officers and directors were entitled to vote, or to direct the voting of 7,857,705 shares of Common Stock, representing 9% of the shares entitled to vote at the 2007 Annual Meeting. Unless otherwise specified, all share numbers and other share data have been adjusted to reflect all prior stock splits.

All shares represented by Proxy and all Proxies solicited hereunder will be voted in accordance with the specifications made by the stockholders executing such Proxies. If a stockholder does not specify how a Proxy is to be voted, the shares represented thereby will be voted: (1) FOR the election as directors of the eight (8) persons nominated by the Board of Directors; and (2) FOR the approval of the amendment of the Company's 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan; (3) FOR the approval of the Company's 2007 Annual Incentive Plan; and (4) upon other matters that may properly come before the Annual Meeting, in accordance with the discretion of the persons to whom the Proxy is granted.

Each share of our Common Stock outstanding on the record date will be entitled to one vote on each matter. The eight (8) nominees for election as directors who receive the most votes "for" election will be elected. Approval of the amendment of the 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and approval of the 2007 Annual Incentive Plan will each require an affirmative vote of the majority of the shares of Common Stock present or represented at the annual meeting.

For the election of directors, withheld votes do not affect whether a nominee has received sufficient votes to be elected. For the purpose of determining whether the stockholders have approved matters other than the election of directors, abstentions are treated as shares present or represented and voting, so abstaining has the same effect as a negative vote. Shares held by brokers that do not have discretionary authority to vote on a particular matter and that have not received voting instructions from their customers are not counted or deemed to be present or represented for the purpose of determining whether stockholders have approved that matter, but they are counted as present for the purpose of determining the existence of a quorum at the annual meeting. Please note that banks and brokers that have not received voting instructions from their clients cannot vote on their clients' behalf on non-routine" proposals, such as approval of the amendment of the 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Pl an and approval of the 2007 Annual Incentive Plan, but may vote their clients' shares on the election of directors.

The following table sets forth information as of September 10, 2007, concerning the equity ownership of (a) those individuals who are known to be the beneficial owners, as defined in Rule 13d-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, of 5% or more of the Company's Common Stock, (b) the directors, (c) the executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table and (d) all of our directors and executive officers as a group:

*  Less than 1%

At the meeting, the stockholders will elect eight (8) directors to hold office for one-year terms ending at the 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders or until their successors are elected and qualified. The Board of Directors has nominated the Company's eight (8) current directors for reelection at the Annual Meeting.

The stockholders are entitled to one vote per share on each matter submitted to vote at any meeting of the Stockholders. Unless contrary instructions are given, the persons named in the enclosed Proxy or their substitutes will vote "FOR" the election of the nominees named below.

Each of the nominees has consented to serve as director. However, if any nominee at the time of election is unable to serve or is otherwise unavailable for election, and as a result other nominees are designated by the Board of Directors, the persons named in the enclosed Proxy or their substitutes intend to vote for the election of such designated nominees.

The directors and nominees for election as directors of the Company, as well as certain information about them, are as follows:

The following information relating to the Company's directors and nominees for director, all of whom are United States citizens, is with respect to their principal occupations and positions during the past five years:

Each of the non-employee directors qualifies as "independent" in accordance with the published listing requirements of Nasdaq: Mr. Ellis, Mr. Curry, Mr. Brown, Mr. Flanigan, and Ms. Shepard. Messrs. Henry, Hall and Prim do not qualify as independent because they are employees of the company. The Nasdaq rules have both objective and subjective tests for determining who is an "independent director." The objective tests state, for example, that a director is not considered independent if he or she is an employee of the company or is a partner in or executive officer of an entity to which the company made, or from which the company received, payments in the current or any of the past three fiscal years that exceed 5% of the recipient's consolidated gross revenue for that year. The subjective test states that an independent director must be a person who lacks a relationship that, in the opinion of the Board, would interfere with the exercise of indepen dent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director.

None of the non-employee directors were disqualified from "independent" status under the objective tests. In assessing independence under the subjective test, the Board took into account the standards in the objective tests and reviewed additional information provided by the directors with regard to each director's business and personal activities as they may relate to the Company and its management. Based on all of the foregoing, as required by Nasdaq rules, the Board made a subjective determination as to each independent director that no relationship exists which, in the opinion of the Board, would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director. The Board has not established categorical standards or guidelines to make these subjective determinations, but considers all relevant facts and circumstances.

In addition to the Board-level standards for director independence, the directors who serve on the Audit Committee each satisfy standards established by the SEC providing that to qualify as "independent" for the purposes of membership on that Committee, members of audit committees may not accept directly or indirectly any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee from the Company other than their director compensation.

In making its independence determinations, the Board considered transactions occurring since the beginning of its 2005 fiscal year between the Company and entities associated with the independent directors or members of their immediate family. While customer relationships do exist between the Company and the financial institutions led by Mr. Curry and Ms. Shepard, the Board has determined that, because of the amounts involved in relationship to the total revenues of the Company and such institutions, the relationships do not impair the independence of these directors. In all cases and in all years reviewed, the amounts received by the Company from these institutions were less than 1% of the Company's total revenue for the year. See "Certain Relationships and Related Transactions", below.

The Company and its businesses are managed under the direction of the Board of Directors. The Board generally meets a minimum of four times during the year, but has complete access to management throughout the year.

The Board of Directors has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines which address the following subjects:

The Board of Directors has also adopted a Nomination Policy with respect to the consideration of director candidates recommended by stockholders. A candidate submission from a stockholder will be considered at any time if the following information is submitted to the Secretary of the Company:

The Secretary of the Company will promptly forward complying nomination submissions to the Chairman of the Governance Committee. The Governance Committee may consider nominees submitted from a variety of sources including but not limited to stockholder nominations. If a vacancy arises or the Board decides to expand its membership, the Committee will evaluate potential candidates from all sources and will rank them by order of preference if more than one is identified as properly qualified. A recommendation will be made to the Board by the Governance Committee based upon qualifications, interviews, background checks and the Company's needs.

The members of the Board of Directors, as well as the executive officers and all other employees, are subject to and responsible for compliance with the Jack Henry Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct contains policies and practices for the ethical and lawful conduct of our business, as well as procedures for confidential investigation of complaints and discipline of wrongdoers.

The Company has posted its significant corporate governance documents on its website at www.jackhenry.com/ir/corpinfo/. There you will find copies of the current Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Jack Henry Code of Conduct, the Compensation Committee Charter, the Governance Committee Charter (with attached Nomination Policy) and Audit Committee Charter, as well as the Company's Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws. Other investor relations materials are also posted at www.jackhenry.com/ir, including SEC reports, financial statements and news releases.

The Board of Directors held four regular meetings and four special meetings during the last fiscal year. Each director attended at least 75% of all meetings of the Board of Directors and all committees on which they served. The independent directors met in one Executive Session without management present during the last fiscal year. In accordance with our Corporate Governance Guidelines, all of the then-current directors attended the Annual Meeting of the Stockholders held on October 31, 2006.

The Board has determined five of its eight members, Ellis, Curry, Brown, Flanigan and Shepard, are independent directors under applicable Nasdaq standards. The Board maintains an Audit Committee of which Messrs. Ellis, Brown, Curry and Flanigan are members. The Board has determined that Matthew Flanigan is an audit committee financial expert because of his extensive accounting and financial experience and that he is independent as that term is used in Item 7(d)(3)(iv) of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Board also maintains a Compensation Committee of which Messrs. Ellis and Flanigan and Ms. Shepard are members and a Governance Committee of which Messrs. Curry and Brown and Ms. Shepard are members. All members of the Audit, Compensation and Governance Committees are independent directors.

The Compensation Committee establishes and reviews the compensation and benefits of the Executive Officers, evaluates the performance of senior executive officers, considers incentive compensation plans for our employees and carries out duties assigned to the Committee under our equity compensation plans and employee stock purchase plan. The Compensation Committee operates under a written charter adopted by the Board.

The Governance Committee identifies, evaluates and recruits qualified individuals to stand for election to the Board of Directors, recommends corporate governance policy changes and evaluates Board performance. The Governance Committee also operates under a charter adopted by the Board. The Governance Committee will consider nominees recommended by stockholders, provided such recommendations are made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the "Governance Committee Nomination Policy" attached to its charter, discussed in greater detail in "Corporate Governance," above.

The Audit Committee selects and retains the independent registered public accounting firm, reviews the scope and results of the audit with the independent registered public accounting firm and management, reviews critical accounting policies and practices, reviews and evaluates our audit and control functions, reviews and pre-approves retention of the independent registered public accounting firm for any audit, audit related and non-audit services, reviews and approves all material related party transactions, and regularly reviews regulatory compliance matters, including our outsourcing services and business recovery operations. The Audit Committee operates under a written Audit Committee Charter.

The Audit Committee met nine times, the Compensation Committee met four times and the Governance Committee met three times during the last fiscal year.

In August of 2007, the Board of Directors adopted Stock Ownership Guidelines establishing stock ownership goals applicable to directors as well as senior management of the Company. Within five years of the adoption of the guidelines (August 2012), each director of the Company is expected to own Company shares having a value of at least four times the annual director base compensation. For this purpose, in addition to shares held outright, directors may include shares held in trust for immediate family members as well as the "in-the-money" value of any vested stock options. All directors are currently in compliance with these guidelines except for Mr. Flanigan and Ms. Shepard, the two newest members of the Board.

The directors who are employed by the Company do not receive any separate compensation for service on the Board of Directors. Each non-employee director receives annual compensation of $25,000 per year plus $2,500 for attending each Board of Directors meeting. Audit Committee members receive $1,500 for each in-person Audit Committee meeting and $1,000 for each telephone Audit Committee meeting attended. Governance and Compensation Committee members receive $600 for each Committee meeting attended. To compensate for additional time spent on Committee matters, the chairmen of the Audit, Compensation and Governance Committees receive a premium of 50% of the standard attendance fee for each Committee meeting that they chair. Each non-employee director is also reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending all Board and committee meetings.

The directors listed above are not eligible for any non-equity incentive plan compensation from the Company or any pension or deferred compensation plan of the Company.

Under the 2005 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan each non-employee director is compensated by the annual grant of non-statutory stock options to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock, subject to an overall grant limitation under the plan of 100,000 shares to each individual director. The grants are made each year on the third business day following the date of the annual meeting of the stockholders.

The Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors is currently composed of four independent directors. The Board has determined that Audit Committee member Matthew C. Flanigan is a financial expert under relevant SEC standards because of his extensive accounting and financial experience. The Board of Directors and the Audit Committee believe that the Audit Committee's current members satisfy all Nasdaq and Securities and Exchange Commission rules that govern audit committee composition.

The Audit Committee operates under a written charter adopted by the Board of Directors. The Charter requires the Audit Committee to oversee and retain the independent registered public accounting firm, pre-approve the services and fees of the independent registered public accounting firm, regularly consider critical accounting policies of the Company, review and approve material related party transactions, receive reports from the Company's Compliance Officer, and establish procedures for receipt and handling of complaints and anonymous submissions regarding accounting or auditing matters. The charter also contains the commitment of the Board of Directors to provide funding and support for the operation of the Audit Committee, including funding for independent counsel for the Committee if the need arises.

The role of the Audit Committee is to assist the Board of Directors in its oversight of the Company's financial reporting process. Management has the primary duty for the financial statements and the reporting process, including the systems of internal controls. The independent registered public accounting firm is responsible for auditing the Company's financial statements and expressing an opinion as to their conformity to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

In the performance of its oversight function, the Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed with management and the independent registered public accounting firm the Company's audited financial statements. The Audit Committee also has discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm the matters required to be discussed by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61 relating to communication with audit committees. In addition, the Audit Committee has received from the independent registered public accounting firm the written disclosures and letter required by Independence Standards Board Standard No. 1 relating to independence discussions with audit committees, has discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm their independence from the Company and its management, and has considered whether the independent registered public accounting firm's provision of non-audit services to the Company is compatible with maintaining the firm's independence.

The Audit Committee discussed with the Company's independent registered public accounting firm the overall scope and plans for their respective audits. The Audit Committee meets with the internal auditors and the independent registered public accounting firm, with and without management present, to discuss the results of their examinations, their evaluations of the Company's internal controls and the overall quality of the Company's financial reporting. These meetings without management present are held at least once each year, and were held twice in the fiscal year just ended.

In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors, and the Board has approved, that the Company's audited financial statements be included in the Company's 2007 Annual Report to Shareholders and Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2007 for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Craig R. Curry, James J. Ellis, Matthew C. Flanigan and Wesley A. Brown
Members of the Audit Committee

The executive officers and significant employees of the Company, as well as certain biographical information about them, are as follows:

The following information is provided regarding the executive officers and significant employees not already described herein, all of whom are United States citizens:

Director Craig R. Curry is Chairman and CEO of Central Bank, Lebanon, Missouri. Mr. Curry and his family own all of the equity interests in Central Bank. Central Bank is a customer of the Company and during the year ended June 30, 2007, it paid $187,532.69 to the Company for software licenses and software maintenance services.

Director Marla K. Shepard is President and CEO of First Future Credit Union of San Diego, California. First Future Credit Union is a customer of the Company and during the year ended June 30, 2007, it paid $248,929.75 to the Company for software licenses and software maintenance services.

Following the end of the most recent fiscal year, the Board of Directors adopted a written policy that requires all related party transactions to be reviewed and approved by the Audit Committee of the Board. The Audit Committee is charged with determining whether a related party transaction is in the best interests of, or not inconsistent with the interests of, the Company and its stockholders. In making this determination, the Audit Committee will take into account such factors as whether the related party transaction is on terms no less favorable to the Company than terms generally available to unaffiliated third parties and the extent of the related party's interest in the transaction. No director may participate in any discussion, approval or ratification of any transaction in which he or she has an interest, except for the purpose of providing information concerning the transaction. For transactions in which the aggregate amount is less than $200,000, the Chairman of the Audit Committ ee has been delegated the authority to pre-approve related party transactions, subject to later review by the full committee. At least annually, ongoing related party transactions will be reviewed to assess continued compliance with the policy.

For purposes of the Related Party Transaction Policy, a related party transaction is a transaction or relationship in which the aggregate amount involved will be or may exceed $100,000 in any calendar year, involves the Company as a participant, and in which any related party has or will have a direct or indirect interest (other than solely as a result of being a director or less than 10% beneficial owner of the other entity). A related Party is any executive officer, director, or more then 5% beneficial owner of the Company or any immediate family member of such persons.

The policy also contains standing pre-approvals of certain transactions that are not believed to pose any material risk to the Company even if the aggregate amount exceeds $100,000 in a calendar year, including: employment arrangements with executive officers, director compensation, transactions involving competitive bids, certain banking-related services, and certain Company charitable contributions. Standing approval is also provided for transactions with another company where the related party's only relationship is as an employee (other than an executive officer), director or beneficial owner of less than 10% of that entity's shares, if the aggregate amount does not exceed $1,000,000 or 2 % of that entity's annual revenues.

The Company is required to identify any director, officer or greater than ten percent beneficial owner who failed to timely file with the Securities and Exchange Commission a report required under Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to ownership and changes in ownership of the Company's common stock. The required reports consist of initial statements on Form 3, statements of changes on Form 4 and annual statements on Form 5.

To the Company's knowledge, based solely on its review of the copies of such forms received by it, the Company believes that during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, all required Section 16(a) filings were filed timely.

The Compensation Committee of the Company has reviewed and discussed the following Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K with management and, based on such review and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board that the following Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement.

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis is designed to provide information regarding the philosophy and objectives underlying our compensation policies, the processes we follow in setting compensation and the components of compensation we utilize in compensating our top executives. This discussion is focused on our Chief Executive Officer Jack Prim, Chief Financial Officer Kevin Williams, President Tony Wormington, Chief Technology Officer Mark Forbis and Executive Vice President Jerry Hall, who are collectively referred to as the "Named Executives." Specific information about the compensation of the Named Executives is set forth in the Summary Compensation Table and other compensation tables beginning on page 17, which should be read in conjunction with this discussion.

Jack Henry's compensation philosophy is to offer compensation programs to our executives that:

In meeting these objectives, the Compensation Committee strives for the interests of management and stockholders to be the same - the maximization of stockholder value.

The compensation programs specific to our Named Executives are administered by the Company's Compensation Committee. The three members of the Compensation Committee are non-employee directors who are independent under Rule 4200(a)(15) of the NASD's Listing Standards. The Compensation Committee operates under a written charter, and has the specific charter responsibility to approve the compensation of the Named Executives and the Company's Chief Operating Officer, Controller and other Senior Vice Presidents. At this time, the Company does not have any officer with the title of Chief Operating Officer.

The Compensation Committee designs and maintains compensation programs consistent with our executive compensation philosophy to achieve the following objectives:

In pursuit of these objectives, the Compensation Committee believes that the compensation packages provided to the Named Executives should include both cash and equity-based compensation, with an emphasis on performance-based pay. Base Pay and benefits are set primarily to attract and retain productive employees. Variable incentive pay is used to align the compensation of the Named Executives with the Company's short term business and performance objectives such as income targets and overall financial performance. Equity awards are used to retain key employees and to motivate executives to create long term stockholder value.

The Compensation Committee has overall responsibility for making decisions regarding the compensation of the Named Executives. In conducting an annual performance review and determining appropriate compensation levels for our Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer (the "Senior Executives"), the Compensation Committee meets and deliberates outside the presence of the Senior Executives and other members of the executive management team. With respect to the compensation levels for other Named Executives, the Compensation Committee considers input and recommendations from the Senior Executives. Performance reviews of our Chief Executive Officer and each other Named Executive are based on subjective evaluations of performance as well as their performance in the preceding fiscal year in achieving Company and individual performance objectives. While our Senior Executives make recommendations concerning salary adjustments, cash bon us programs or award amounts for the other Named Executives, the Compensation Committee can exercise its discretion to modify or reject any recommendations from executives.

In designing compensation programs and determining compensation levels for the current 2008 fiscal year, the Compensation Committee decided for the first time to obtain assistance from an independent compensation consultant in conducting a review of our compensation program for the Named Executives and to advise in the establishment of a new program. The Compensation Committee engaged Hay Group, Inc., a global human resources consulting firm, to serve as its independent advisor and compensation consultant. The Chairman of the Compensation Committee worked directly with The Hay Group to determine the scope of the work needed to assist the Committee in its decision-making processes. The engagement included provision of benchmark comparative data for the Named Executives with respect to base salaries, annual cash bonuses, long term incentives, and equity incentives, as well as review of current employment arrangements, incentive plan designs and comparative data regarding severance, change of control, benefits and perquisites. At the direction of the Compensation Committee, The Hay Group also met with management to gain a better understanding of the Company's past pay policies and practices and to facilitate development of new approaches to executive compensation. The Hay Group provided the Compensation Committee with relevant market data and alternatives to consider when making compensation decisions for our Named Executives. Prior year compensation decisions with regard to the Named Executives were made primarily on subjective evaluations of the individuals with some reference to comparative data, but without any specific comparative targets.

In making compensation decisions for fiscal year 2008, the Compensation Committee compared each element of total direct compensation against a peer group of 14 publicly traded companies in the software and data processing industries against which the Compensation Committee believes we compete in the market for executive talent. We collectively refer to this group as the "Compensation Peer Group." In selecting companies for the 2008 Compensation Peer Group, the Compensation Committee considered various companies provided by the Senior Executives, as well as companies submitted by the Hay Group. The Compensation Peer Group will be periodically reviewed and updated by the Compensation Committee. In addition to industry considerations, the Compensation Committee selects companies for the Compensation Peer Group based on their annual revenues and market capitalization. For comparison purposes, Jack Henry's annual revenues are somewhat below the median revenues of the Compensation Peer Group.

To benchmark each element of total compensation for each of our Named Executives, the independent advisor to the Compensation Committee provided data from two key sources: an executive compensation survey reflective of the Compensation Peer Group and proxy statements and other public filings for the companies in our Compensation Peer Group. The advisor also provided data from a compensation survey for the entire software industry for any executive positions or compensation programs for which we lacked clear comparable data from the Compensation Peer Group. In reviewing compensation survey data, the Compensation Committee focused on data for software companies with annual revenues similar to ours. Sources of data for compensation surveys and analysis include surveys for our Compensation Peer Group and the software industry, in addition to proxy statements and other public filings by companies in our Compensation Peer Group. The Compensation Peer Group is currently comprised of the following 14 companies:

For setting fiscal 2008 compensation, the Compensation Committee decided to target total cash compensation (i.e., base salary and annual cash incentives) for the Named Executives at or approaching the 50th percentile of the Compensation Peer Group. In targeting total cash compensation at the 50th percentile, we recognize that there are certain limitations in the market data available for the Compensation Peer Group. Thus, in addition to considering levels of compensation suggested by market data, the Compensation Committee may also consider other relevant factors including individual performance against pre-agreed objectives under business plans for the preceding fiscal year, individual performance reviews, and internal equity for compensation levels among our executives.

In regards to the three Senior Executives (CEO, President and CFO), because of their sharing of duties and responsibilities, our 50th percentile target for total cash compensation is applied to them as a group and not necessarily individually, with the result that their individual compensation may be somewhat more or less than if considered individually against the target. Because this is the first year of strong focus on comparative compensation data, and because this is the first year of grants under our new restricted stock plan, the Compensation Committee opted not to include a 50th percentile target in connection with its decisions about long-term incentive compensation, as discussed below, but such a target may be adopted in future years. The long-term compensation recently granted to the Named Executives is in fact well below the 50th percentile of the Compensation Peer Group.

The allocation between cash, non-cash, short term and long term incentive compensation is influenced by the practices of our Compensation Peer Group and reflects the Compensation Committee's determination of the appropriate compensation mix among base pay, annual cash incentives and long-term equity incentives to encourage retention and performance. Actual cash and equity incentive awards are set as a result of the performance of the Company or the individual, depending on the type of award, compared to established goals. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008, the elements of the compensation mix include:

In fiscal 2007, base salaries were based upon subjective evaluations of performance and contribution with some attention to comparative data but no specific percentile target. For fiscal 2008, the Compensation Committee has established the base salary of each Named Executive other than Mr. Hall based primarily on consideration of the 50th percentile pay levels of the Compensation Peer Group. In reviewing base salaries for our Named Executives, the Committee also considers other relevant factors for each individual such as achievement of pre-agreed objectives in the preceding fiscal year, individual performance review, and the internal equity of the executive's base salary as compared to salaries of our other executives, as well as the Company's performance against key objectives under our budget for the preceding fiscal year, including objectives related to revenue and earnings targets as well as competitive results. As discussed above, the 50th p ercentile target for fiscal 2008 has been applied with respect to the three Senior Executives as a group rather than individually. In contrast to the other Named Executives, base salary for Mr. Hall has been fixed at its current level for several years, reflecting his senior, part-time and largely advisory role in management. Although the Compensation Committee believes that competitive base salaries are necessary to attract and retain a highly qualified and effective executive team, it also believes that a significant portion of executive compensation should be based on pay-for-performance.

It is our general practice to provide Named Executives with the opportunity to earn annual incentive cash bonus compensation under programs that reward attainment of key objectives under corporate annual business plans. The objectives that underlie our annual incentive compensation programs may vary between fiscal years and between the Named Executives, but generally include objectives that reward attainment of targeted earnings. In setting the bonus amounts a Named Executive is eligible to earn for achieving specified objectives, the Compensation Committee targets bonus and total cash compensation levels at or near the 50th percentile of the Compensation Peer Group and published survey data. Bonus opportunities for achieving objectives are generally established as a percentage of an executive's base salary and the percentages increase with job scope and complexity. Executives have the opportunity to earn reduced bonus amounts if a minimum level ( threshold) of performance against an objective is achieved. Executives can also earn increased bonus amounts for performance in excess of the level of performance targeted under an objective.

The decision as to whether to offer an annual incentive cash bonus program to Named Executives for any fiscal year, the type and funding of any program offered, and the objectives that underlie any program, are subject to the discretion of the Compensation Committee and its assessment of general and industry specific conditions existing during the applicable period. In determining the amount of bonus that a Named Executive is eligible to earn under a bonus program, the Compensation Committee may also exercise negative discretion to reduce or increase an award based on its assessment of the executive's contribution and accountability for the objectives that are the subject of the bonus, the internal equity of the executive's bonus opportunity as compared to bonus opportunities for our other executives, and any other factors the Compensation Committee considers relevant.

For fiscal 2007, the Compensation Committee offered each of the Senior Executives the opportunity to earn a cash bonus under the Company's 2007 Executive Bonus Plan and offered Mr. Forbis the opportunity to earn a cash bonus under the 2007 General Managers Bonus Plan. Mr. Hall was not eligible under any bonus plan due to his senior advisory status. Bonus amounts under both bonus plans were based on Company performance in achieving growth in earnings per share during the fiscal year. Bonus opportunities under both plans were identical and ranged from a minimum bonus of 7.5% of base salary to 45% of base salary. Actual growth in earnings per share during the year resulted in the payment of bonuses to Messrs. Prim, Williams, Wormington and Forbis of 40% of their base salaries after the end of the fiscal year. In fiscal year 2006, the Senior Executives' bonus plan provided the opportunity to earn a cash bonus of 60% of base pay and Mr. Forbis' bonus plan provided the opportunity to earn a bonu s of 50% of base pay upon achievement of a single target of growth in net income. The target was not achieved in fiscal 2006 and no performance bonuses were paid to any of the Named Executives. Prior to fiscal year 2006, the Company did not offer performance bonus opportunities to the Named Executives. The Compensation Committee believes that annual cash bonus opportunities are highly effective motivators for management employees that were instrumental in obtaining excellent Company performance in both fiscal 2007 and 2006, even though performance in 2006 just below target levels resulted in no bonus payment that year.

To provide an appropriate structure for cash bonus incentives for fiscal 2008 and future years, the Compensation Committee has proposed the 2007 Annual Incentive Plan attached hereto as Appendix A. The Plan has been approved by the Board of Directors and is submitted herein for ratification by vote of the stockholders at the Annual Meeting. See Proposal 3 below.

For fiscal 2008 an incentive cash bonus plan has been established for the Senior Executives (Messrs. Prim, Wormington and Williams) which is based 70% upon achievement of operating income targets and 30% upon achievement of a superior return on average assets ("ROAA") in comparison with the Compensation Peer Group. For purposes of the FY 2008 annual incentive plan, ROAA is defined as operating income of the Company divided by average assets (beginning assets plus ending assets divided by two) for the plan year. The operating income target is determined in relation to the annual budget of the Company as approved by the Board of Directors. The plan calls for bonuses of 85% of base compensation for the Chief Executive Officer and 65% of base compensation for the President and Chief Financial Officer at pre-determined performance targets, but also provides for bonuses of 20% of targeted bonuses at threshold performance and as much as 200% of targeted bonuses at maximum performance. The bonus p ercentages and ranges were determined primarily by reference to comparative compensation data provided to the Compensation Committee by its independent advisor. The operating income component of the annual bonus for the Senior Executives ranges from a threshold of 90% of budgeted operating income to a target at 100% and to a maximum at 105%. The ROAA component of the annual bonus ranges from a threshold performance at the 50th percentile in comparison to the Compensation Peer Group to a target set at the 65th percentile to a maximum at or above the 90th percentile. The Compensation Committee has consulted with the senior Executives with regard to the performance targets and has attempted to set the overall threshold performance levels at a probability of approximately 80%, the target at approximately 50% probability and the maximum at a low probability of approximately 10%. The maximum bonus is thus intended to be payable only upon truly superior performance. The Compensation Committee intends for this annua l bonus plan to provide a strong incentive for management to meet budgetary income goals as well as to encourage superior performance in utilization of corporate resources in comparison with the Company's Compensation Peer Group.

The 2008 incentive cash bonus plan established for Mr. Forbis varies somewhat from the plan for the Senior Executives. The target bonus is set at 30% of base compensation and may vary from 20% of targeted bonus at threshold to 150% of targeted bonus at maximum. The bonus is based 50% upon the Company's achievement of the budget operating income target and 50% upon achievement of the specific expense containment objectives of his Technical Services department as set forth in the annual budget of the Company. The operating income component of Mr. Forbis's bonus plan is similar to the plan for the Senior Executives in that it ranges from a threshold at 90% of budget to a target at 100% and a maximum at 105%. The other component of his bonus plan is designed to reward containment of expenses of his department and ranges from 100% of this portion of the bonus at or below the budgeted expense amount to 10% of the bonus if actual expenses are 109% of budgeted expenses. This departmental component of the bonus is not payable to Mr. Forbis if actual expenses are 110% or more of the budgeted expenses.

The Compensation Committee understands that the bonus plan adopted for fiscal year 2008 could result in substantial increases in bonus payments to Named Executives, particularly if performance is well above the Company targets that have been set. The Committee believes that such increases are justified in an attempt to reach the comparative goal for cash compensation of 50th percentile and believes that the costs of such bonuses to the Company are fully justified by the potential benefits and return to our stockholders. In future years the Committee will thoroughly review the effects of the bonus plan on results achieved and will make any changes to the bonus plan that they deem necessary.

In addition to the cash bonus opportunities under formal pay-for-performance cash bonus programs, the Compensation Committee may choose to reward extraordinary performance and achievements by awarding discretionary bonuses to the Named Executives and other executives from time to time that are not part of the annual incentive plan or any other plan. With respect to the Named Executives, no discretionary bonuses were awarded based on Company performance or the executives' performance during fiscal 2007. Although the Company has a long-standing practice of awarding fixed annual holiday cash bonuses to virtually all employees of the Company, the practice was terminated as to the Named Executives and general managers of the Company in fiscal 2007.

For many years, the Company provided long-term compensation to its senior management and employees in the form of stock options. Such options were granted occasionally but not annually. The last stock option grant to any of the Named Executives was in fiscal year 2003. Each of the Senior Executives and Mr. Forbis continue to hold some of the options granted in prior years. Because of recent changes in the accounting treatment of stock options, however, the Company determined that future equity grants serving as long-term incentive compensation should be in the form of restricted stock. In 2005, the Board proposed and the stockholders approved the Company's Restricted Stock Plan, which is intended to be the primary structure for future equity incentive awards to the executive officers and other employees of the Company and its subsidiaries. We believe that equity awards have been instrumental in building Jack Henry & Associates, in retaining ta lent, and in encouraging management to take the long-term view with regard to strategic decisions they face. Equity awards also help focus executive and employee attention on managing the Company from the perspective of an owner with an equity stake in the business. Since the adoption of the Restricted Stock Plan, the Compensation Committee has had the discretionary authority to grant restricted stock awards and to determine the terms of the restrictions on granted shares. However, without any formal grant plan in place, the Compensation Committee did not grant any shares of restricted stock in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

With respect to fiscal year 2008, the Compensation Committee has adopted and the Board has ratified a grant of long-term incentive compensation in the form of shares of restricted stock to our Senior Executives and to Mr. Forbis. Because of his senior, advisory status and substantial current holdings, Mr. Hall was not considered eligible for a restricted stock award. Such grants may be made annually in the future, but future grants will continue to be discretionary and amounts may fluctuate based upon the Compensation Committee's evaluation of performance from year to year. In determining the level of award for a Named Executive, the Compensation Committee considers relevant factors such as achievement of previously agreed objectives, the executive's performance review, external comparative data from the Compensation Peer Group and other sources, the current equity ownership and stock options held by the individual executive and the internal equity of the level of award granted to the exec utive compared to awards granted to our other executives. In reviewing the award levels for our Named Executives, the Compensation Committee believes it is appropriate to consider the Company's performance against key objectives under its corporate business plan for the preceding fiscal year, including objectives related to revenue and earnings targets, and whether the Company's performance during the preceding fiscal year benefited stockholders through any meaningful appreciation in the market price of the Company's common stock. In administering the equity compensation programs, the Compensation Committees monitors the level of dilution that can result from equity awards to executives and other employees and considers the dilutive effect of the Company's aggregate equity awards during any fiscal year.

The specific restricted stock grants to the Senior Executives for fiscal year 2008 have been approved in dollar amounts of stock approximately equal to base compensation on the effective date of the grant (September 10). Mr. Forbis's grant is to be in the approximate amount of 75% of his base compensation on the effective date of the grant. While the grant amounts were determined with reference to comparable grants of long-term incentive compensation by other members of the Compensation Peer Group and published survey data, they have not been targeted at any particular level and are in fact well below the 50th percentile of the Compensation Peer Group. The Compensation Committee felt that this practice was prudent in this initial year of grants under the Restricted Stock Plan and in light of other increases in compensation of the Named Executives. Future awards, if granted, may be greater or smaller.

The 2008 awards of restricted stock have been structured to meet goals for specific accounting treatment as well as providing incentives for long-term performance and retention. The restrictions on one-third of the stock awards to the Senior Executives will lapse three years after the date of grant. The restrictions on the other two-thirds will lapse after seven years, but portions can lapse earlier if average total shareholder return over the periods are at or above the 65th percentile in comparison with other members of the Compensation Peer Group at the end of each of three, four and five years from the date of grant. For this purpose, total shareholder return is defined as ending stock price minus beginning stock price (adjusted for splits and similar changes) plus dividends per share paid over the performance period, all divided by the beginning stock price. The restrictions on all of Mr. Forbis's shares will lapse over five years, with one-ninth of such amount lapsing at the end of each of the first three years and then one-third at the end of each of years four and five following the date of grant. Retention is encouraged by grant terms which immediately forfeit all shares that are still restricted in the event that the grantee's employment with the Company is terminated for any reason other than in the event of death, incapacity or any change in control.

Each of the Named Executives, other than Mr. Hall, has entered into a Termination Benefits Agreement with the Company that is discussed in this Proxy Statement under the caption "Agreements with Executive Officers." These agreements reflect the concern of the Board of Directors that any future threatened or actual change in control such as an acquisition or merger could cause disruption and harm to the Company in the event of the resulting loss of any of its key executives. The Termination Benefits Agreements are intended to provide a measure of incentive and security to the executives through the resolution of the threat or through a change in control.

The Compensation Committee believes that such agreements should not include provisions that would obligate a potential acquirer of the Company to make large payouts to our Named Executives simply because a change of control has occurred. Because of this concern, the occurrence of a change of control event alone will not trigger any payment obligations to our Named Executives under their respective agreements. Payment obligations only arise in the event the Named Executive's employment is terminated or is deemed to be terminated without "Cause" (as defined in the agreements) within the period commencing 90 days prior to and for 24 months following a change in control for the Senior Executives.

Payment obligations under the Termination Benefits Agreements with the Senior Officers are two times the current annual base salary plus target bonus, payable 50% in twelve equal monthly installments and 50% in a lump sum at the end of the monthly installments. Health and other benefits are also continued for 18 months for the Named Executives, and all equity awards become fully vested. The benefits provided were determined primarily by reference to comparative data provided to the Compensation Committee by its independent advisor and, at least in relation to base salary, are consistent with the prior agreements which they replaced. The benefits are believed by the Compensation Committee to be sufficient to provide the desired incentive and security to crucial personnel in a time of disruption.

The Termination Benefits Agreements have terms of two years, will automatically renew thereafter for successive two year terms unless terminated by either party and may not be terminated following any change in control. The agreements specify that they do not confer on the executives any right to continued employment and shall not interfere with the right of the Company to terminate the executives at any time.

The Company offers certain broad-based benefits programs including benefits such as health, dental, disability and life insurance, health care savings accounts, paid vacation time and company contributions to a 401(k) Employee Savings Plan. Benefits are provided to all employees in accordance with practices within the marketplace and are a necessary element of compensation in attracting and retaining employees. There are no additional benefits programs for our Named Executives.

The Board of Directors has established stock ownership guidelines for the Named Executives, other members of management and the directors of the Company. These guidelines provide for each covered individual to hold a number of shares of the Company's common stock with an aggregate market value that equates to a specified multiple of the employee's base salary or, in the case of directors, of their annual cash retainer. The guidelines are four times base salary for the Chief Executive Officer, three times base salary for President and Chief Financial Officer, one time base salary for the Vice Presidents and General Managers, and four times the annual base retainer for directors. The value of each person's share holdings for purposes of the guidelines includes all unrestricted and restricted shares held, all Company shares held in the person's retirement accounts, all shares held by or for the person's immediate family members, and the in-the-money value of all Company stock options held. Even though some members of management hold a number of shares at or above the number of shares specified under the guidelines, the Compensation Committee recognizes that newer executive officers or employees who were recently promoted to executive officer positions and newly elected directors may require some period of time to achieve the guideline amounts. The guidelines, therefore, contemplate a five-year transition period for acquiring a number of shares with the specified market value. The Compensation Committee will monitor each executive's progress toward achieving the levels of share ownership specified in the guidelines in determining grants of equity awards.

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code generally limits the corporate deduction for compensation paid to the Chief Executive Officer and other Named Executives to $1 million per individual, unless certain requirements are met which establish that compensation as performance-based. The Compensation Committee has considered the impact of this tax code provision and attempts, to the extent practical, to implement compensation policies and practices that maximize the potential income tax deductions available to the Company by qualifying such policies and practices as performance-based compensation exempt from the deduction limits of Section 162(m).

The Compensation Committee will continue to review and modify our compensation practices and programs as necessary to ensure our ability to attract and retain key executives while taking into account the deductibility of compensation payments.

The following table sets forth certain information with regard to the compensation paid to our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Financial Officer and the Company's other three most highly compensated current executive officers (collectively, our "Named Executives") during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.

The following table presents information on awards granted under our 2007 Executive Bonus Plan to Messrs. Prim, Wormington and Williams and under our 2007 General Manager Bonus Plan to Mr. Forbis. No equity awards of any kind were made to any of the Named Executives during fiscal year 2007.

Effective September 1, 2007, the annual base salary of Mr. Prim was increased from $468,000 to $500,000, the base salary of Mr. Williams was increased from $364,000 to $375,000, and the base salary of Mr. Forbis was increased from $220,000 to $240,000. These base salary adjustments were based on the Compensation Committee's reviews of performance as well as comparative market data for these specific positions provided to the Compensation Committee by its independent advisor The Hay Group.

For fiscal 2007, Messrs. Prim, Wormington and Williams had the opportunity to earn cash bonuses under the Company's 2007 Executive Bonus Plan and Mr. Forbis had the opportunity to earn a cash bonus under the 2007 General Managers Bonus Plan. Mr. Hall was not eligible under any bonus plan due to his senior advisory status. Bonus amounts under both bonus plans were based on Company performance in achieving growth in earnings per share during the fiscal year and ranged from a minimum bonus of 7.5% of base salary to 45% of base salary. Actual growth in earnings per share during the year resulted in the payment of bonuses to Messrs. Prim, Williams, Wormington and Forbis of 40% of their base salaries after the end of the fiscal year.

On September 10, 2007, annual incentive plan agreements were granted to Messrs. Prim, Wormington, Williams and Forbis. These agreements set forth the cash incentive compensation opportunities available to these executives based on performance goals established for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. The performance goals for Messrs. Prim, Wormington and Williams are based 70% on achievement of operating income targets established in the Company's annual budget and 30% upon achieving superior return on average assets in comparison with the Compensation Peer Group (See "Compensation Discussion and Analysis - Annual Incentive Cash Bonuses," above). The performance goals for Mr. Forbis are based 50% upon the Company achieving its targeted operating income and 50% upon achieving the expense containment objectives of his Technical Services department. Performance targets are set in the agreements, as well as thresholds for minimum performance and maximums for superior performance. The agreemen ts call for incentive awards to be paid after the Company's independent public accountants have reported on the financial statements of the Company for the year. Incentive awards are generally not payable to persons whose employment terminates during a year or prior to the award payout, but the Compensation Committee can make exceptions in the case of death, disability or retirement. In the event of a termination of employment due to a change in control of the Company, awards will be paid out at the target levels. The annual incentive award agreements establish the target bonuses expressed as a percentage of base salary for these executives, and the dollar amounts of potential bonuses at threshold, target and maximum, are as follows: