Edward Charles Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264245043
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2010, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Beverly Hills, CA, US
Phone
(310) 694-3734
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$67,600,579
Expenses
$59,279,182
Assets
$63,484,720
Liabilities
$8,868,917

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KENT SETON (CEO, CFO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JUSTIN A DENT (DIRECTOR): $252,238 total reported compensation
  • MORGAN CAMU (ADMINISTRATOR): $236,635 total reported compensation
  • STACEY C WILLIAM (ADMINISTRATOR): $235,970 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We believe in Four Pillars of Success: Engagement, Impact, Enjoyment, and Education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cosmos institute is an educational project advancing an research think tank, provide grants, working with the university of oxford all relating to devoting ethics with artificial intelligence.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 62% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 75
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 93.5%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 96.1%; rating input score 96; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.3%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.3% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.5% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.8% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 82.3% of revenue deployed · 93.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $55.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $252K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.3M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 209 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 204 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.