Drepung Gomang Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611399694
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Phone
5026145616
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other
Affiliation
Buddhism

Reported finances

Revenue
$377,648
Expenses
$422,300
Assets
$1,365,931
Liabilities
$111,141

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WOODY WOODRUFF (VICE PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR)
  • STEVE RAUH (PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR)
  • GESHE KALSANG RAPGYAL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANNE WALTER (DIRECTOR): $91,451 total reported compensation
  • GESHE KALSANG RAPGYAL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $7,750 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

As the north american seat of drepung gomang monastery, we offer the region an opportunity to study and practice tibetan buddhism through transformative guided retreats, classes, and teachings; we actively promote awareness of the endangered tibetan culture (see schedule o) and associated human rights issues with commemorations and events, and by hosting the drepung gomang sacred arts tours; we provide louisville a welcoming space and programs relating to the practice of meditation, secular ethics, interfaith dialogue and peacemaking as inspired by his holiness the dalai lama; we are dedicated to engaging compassion in the hearts of the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Supporting the life and work of our sister organization, drepung gomang monastery in india, including hosting the abbot and other renowned tibetan buddhist teachers, offering retreats and a variety of classes and programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 64% for direct work, and 36% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 70%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • 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 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.23; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80% of revenue deployed · 70% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $295K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $91K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.