Clock Foundation
Legal name: Epigenetic Clock Development Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 851457272
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Torrance, CA, US
- Phone
- (866) 366-2001
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,073,205
- Expenses
- $1,828,411
- Assets
- $330,376
- Liabilities
- $186,603
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ROBERT BROOKE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- ROBERT BROOKE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $120,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Enable everyone to achieve longevity escape velocity using safe and affordable interventions.
What it reported doing in 2024
External research collaborations: interventional longevity studies we continue to conduct many new interventional studies each year, for clinical trials and also preclinical studies. This includes studies on plasmapharesis, young plasma treatment, stem cell exosomes, bone marrow transplants, umbilical cord plasma, antiretroviral treatments, and a senolytic gene therapy. Wildlife conservation many researchers now also commonly use epigenetic aging clocks to predict the age animals in the wild, including whales, dolphins, elk, polar bears, and many other species. The testing is being developed as an alternative to much more invasive measures such as tooth extraction, enabling routine studies on the effects of population stressors such as habitat loss on biological aging. Mechanisms of aging studies there were many notable mechanistic studies this past year on the role of cellular heterogeneity in epigenetic clock results, the short-term effects of exercise in professional soccer players, testing many different types of cellular reprogramming, the effects of heterochronic parabiosis and bone marrow transplants.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 76% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 87.5%; rating input score 88
- Program expense ratio: 99.3%; rating input score 99
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11.8%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.56; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -26.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -26.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -52.2% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 87.5% of revenue deployed · 99.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 3 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $112K reported
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.