Pérez Art Museum Miami
Legal name: Jorge M Perez Art Museum of Miami-dade County Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 592048869
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Miami, FL, USA
- Phone
- +1 305 375 3000
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Art Museums
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $38,351,055
- Expenses
- $22,540,770
- Assets
- $196,807,508
- Liabilities
- $2,976,279
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
56 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- LUKE R PALACIO (PRESIDENT)
- KAREN H BECHTEL (VICE-PRESIDENT)
- PATRICIA PAPPER (SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT)
- GREGORY C FERRERO (EX-OFFICIO PRESIDENT)
- FRANKLIN SIRMANS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- FRANKLIN SIRMANS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $733,166 total reported compensation
- MARK ROSENBLUM (COO): $348,527 total reported compensation
- M THERESE VENTO (GENERAL COUNSEL): $240,583 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Pérez Art Museum Miami (PAMM) is a modern and contemporary art museum dedicated to collecting and exhibiting international art of the 20th and 21st centuries, with a focus on the Americas and the Caribbean.
What it reported doing in 2024
Various art exhibitions, educational programs, lectures and other related events.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 45
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 83
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 38%; rating input score 38
- Program expense ratio: 59.3%; rating input score 59
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.28 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- 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: 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: 41.2%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.73; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 38% of revenue deployed · 59.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 40 of 40 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $13.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $733K · 56 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.5M reported
- Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.