The Nasher Sculpture Center
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 020601628
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2020
- Location
- Dallas, TX, USA
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Art Museums
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $13,986,319
- Expenses
- $13,988,918
- Assets
- $4,420,518
- Liabilities
- $1,694,532
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DAVID HAEMISEGGER (PRESIDENT AND TRUSTEE)
- JEREMY STRICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU 5/24))
- CHARLES BASUALDO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (AS OF 5/25))
Highest reported compensation
- JEREMY STRICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU 5/24)): $1,602,211 total reported compensation
- JOHN MCBRIDE (DEPUTY DIR., FINANCE & OPERATIONS): $352,566 total reported compensation
- DAVID MORSE (INTERIM DIR (THRU 5/25); CHIEF CURATOR): $323,053 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 nasher sculpture center is to be the international focal point an catalyst for the study, installation, conservation, and inspiration of modern and contemporary art.
What it reported doing in 2024
The center conducts educational programs for members and visitors about modern art through free first saturdays, student tours, teacher workshops, museum forum for teachers, summer institute for teens, homeschool workshops, museum 101, & studio 360. During tax year 2024 there were 21,666 participants in these programs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Affiliate-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
- 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.
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: 49
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 50.8%; rating input score 51
- Program expense ratio: 50.3%; rating input score 50
- Fundraising efficiency: $7.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- 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: 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: -0%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 22.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 50.8% of revenue deployed · 50.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.6M · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.6M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.