The Chinati Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742340423
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Marfa, TX, USA
Phone
4327294362
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Art Museums

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,370,230
Expenses
$3,707,604
Assets
$25,489,139
Liabilities
$198,241

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Caitlin Murray (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Caitlin Murray (Executive Director): $200,547 total reported compensation
  • Stephen Martin (Dir. Preservation and Planning): $121,733 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 chinati foundation/la fundacion chinati is to preserve the vision of the artist donald judd (1928-1994), who in 1986 founded the organization as a unique museum. Judd installed large-scale works and groups of work by himself and a limited number of other artists on a permanent basis according to each artist's specifications. It was judd's goal to bring art, architecture, and the land together to form a coherent whole. Judd believed in the purity of art and its intrinsic value for humans. He situated his museum in marfa, Texas, believing that the remoteness and vast open spaces of the locale enhanced viewers' experience of the artworks. Central to this mission are conserving the collection and making it available to the public, while maintaining the educational programs that judd initiated.

What it reported doing in 2024

To preserve the chinati foundation's permanent art collection and present it to the public: the museum is located on 340 acres of land on the site of the former fort d.a. Russell in the small town of marfa, Texas. With funds provided by the dia art foundation, repairs and renovations of the historic buildings were begun in 1979, followed by the installations of art works. In 1986, chinati opened to the public as an independent, non-profit, publicly funded organization. The original concept was to focus on work by donald judd, dan flavin, and john chamberlain, who are represented in the collection by 15 outdoor works in concrete, and 100 mill aluminum works in two converted artillery sheds (donald judd); illuminations in colored fluorescent light in six former barracks (dan flavin); and 225 sculptures installed in a renovated warehouse (john chamberlain). Subsequently, judd decided to expand the collection to include works by claes oldenburg & coosje van bruggen, richard long, roni horn, david rabinowitch, ilya kabakov, and ingolfur arnarsson. Following his death in 1994, the museum realized projects, adhering to judd's ideas including carl andre's poems (1995(, dan flavin's installations (2000), and john wesley's gallery of paintings (2004). Further additions to the collections will also strictly follow the parameters set by judd and will always be guided by his interestes and intentions of an environment in which art, architecture, and the land exist in mutual aesthetic harmony. Due to the large size and scale of the museum and its grounds, the chinati foundation is accessible by guided tour only. Public tours of the collections are available wednesday through sunday. Conservation of the collection and maintenance and repair of the buildings housing the collection are ongoing efforts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.3%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 66.3%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.8%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.87; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.7%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.3% of revenue deployed · 66.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $201K · 22 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 48/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.