E-Vam Buddhist Institute USA

Legal name: E Vam Buddhist Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270120142
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2014
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
South Orange, NJ, USA
Phone
6467842447
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Buddhism
Affiliation
Buddhism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$35,570
Expenses
$118,328
Assets
$57,217
Liabilities
$9,500

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FELICITY LODRO (PRESIDENT/CH)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL BLAZE (VICE PRESIDE): $7,627 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

E-Vam Institute aims to provide opportunities for education across many Buddhist traditions, with a special focus on the Kagyu and Nyingma traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. Traleg Rinpoche teaches in Europe. Rinpoche enjoyed his many visits to the wonderful Centre's in Europe. Traleg Rinpoche with his Tibetan Temple Dog, Jackie. at his home in Melbourne early 2000's. The photo says it all... Traleg Rinpoche as a child in Sikkim. Traleg Rinpoche IX was educated by His Holiness with the other young tulkus in exile until he was nine, when he went to a centre near Darjeeling, studied under the guidance of His Eminence Thugsey Rinpoche and was taught exclusively by Khenpo Noryang and Khenpo Sodar for many years. In order for Rinpoche to receive training in Karma Kagyu tantric ritual practice, His Holiness Karmapa sent lama Ganga from Buxaduwar to train him. Thus, Rinpoche received both...

What it reported doing in 2014

Study of the teaching of buddhism through weekly classes and weekend meditation and study programs taught by traleg kyabgon rinpoche and other teachers from the kagyu and nyingma schools of tibetan buddhism.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.7%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 41.4%; rating input score 41
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -232.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27.9% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -62.6% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -162.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 99.7% of revenue deployed · 41.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $49K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $8K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2014
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.