Musical Instrument Museum
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 161743588
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-PF 2023, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ, USA
- Phone
- (480) 478-6000
- Rating
- 64
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Museum, Museum Activities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $41,100,797
- Expenses
- $21,016,342
- Assets
- $199,605,235
- Liabilities
- $2,193,220
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CRAIG D CULY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/TREASURER)
Highest reported compensation
- CRAIG D CULY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/TREASURER): $268,857 total reported compensation
- MANUAL A JORDAN PEREZ (DEPUTY DIRECTOR & CHIEF CURATOR): $242,164 total reported compensation
- KIM PRITCHARD (DIRECTOR OF HR (LEFT 9/2024)): $145,417 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the Musical Instrument Museum (MIM) is to enrich the world by collecting, preserving, and making accessible an astonishing variety of musical instruments and the music they create from every country in the world.
What it reported doing in 2024
Education and public programs: people of all ages learn through music at mim. Education offerings include children's classes, a student field trip program that welcomes up to 70,000 participants annually, teacher professional development workshops, and educational experiences for adults and seniors. Weekend public programs called signature events bring the community together to celebrate world cultures, musical genres, and iconic artists.
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 - A large share of total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 63
- Transparency & Controls: 53
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 88
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 50.5%; rating input score 50
- Program expense ratio: 82.6%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: $37.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 26.5%; rating input score 26; 9th 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 48.9%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.5; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 50.5% of revenue deployed · 82.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $17.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $269K · 17 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.3M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 43 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 26/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.