Cosmos Club Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
526071375
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023877783
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Humanities Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$430,590
Expenses
$72,794
Assets
$4,143,200
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • WESTON D BURNETT (TRUSTEE)
  • DAVID M BECKER (TRUSTEE)
  • DAVID R FORD (CHAIRMAN)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Advancement of the arts, sciences and humanities through awards and grants to stimulate scholarship, conduct of symposia and dissemination of information for the public good.

What it reported doing in 2024

The cosmos club foundations grant program provides prizes to post doctoral scholars at local Washington dc-area universities to further their research. The foundation gave two cosmos club awards worth $5,000 each. The cosmos club award is presented annually to selected individual(s) of national or international standing in a field of science, literature, the fine arts, other learned professions or public service. The john p. Mcgovern award is awarded to selected individuals whose endeavors have clearly distinguished them as leaders in their spheres of activity. Each recipient is offered an honorarium and is presented with a medal commemorating his or her selection. Recipients speak about their work at a ceremony held at the cosmos club and to which non-members are invited.the lectures are open to non-members, and a plaque is placed in the cosmos clubhouse memorializing each award recipient.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 8
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 93
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 4.5%; rating input score 4
  • Program expense ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 17
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 83.1%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 56.92; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 4.5% of revenue deployed · 16.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $12K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 4/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.