Nyingma Centers

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942453435
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
7072301895
Rating
30
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$248,918
Expenses
$395,388
Assets
$5,137
Liabilities
$121,500

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Helena Gold (CEO)

People named in this filing

  • Helena Gold (CEO)
  • Elske van de Hulst (Secretary)
  • Claudio Mendes Moraes (CFO)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote teach and disseminate the Tibetan Nyingma traditions of Buddhism and to make those teachings available to the West in forms appropriate to the contemporary world. To encourage assist and cooperate with related non-profit organizations having the same goals. To develop operate administer and train in education programs the tenets principles practices and rituals of Tibetan Nyingma Buddhism in related organizations throughout the world.

What it reported doing in 2025

Curriculum materials sacred Buddhist texts for shedras Nyingma monastic schools and colleges in India Tibet Nepal Sikkim and Bhutan in traditional Nyingma Buddhist monasteries: 186,000 textbooks produced to be shipped to Bodh Gaya India to be distributed at the Nyingma Monlam World Piece Ceremony in January 2026.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 7
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 9.2%; rating input score 9
  • Program expense ratio: 5.8%; rating input score 6
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 73.6%; rating input score 74; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: Limited
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -58.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 23.65; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.8% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 9.2% of revenue deployed · 5.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $23K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 36 of 41 current checks pass · 5 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 9/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.