The Bhutan Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133376290
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026097363
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,198,488
Expenses
$5,425,770
Assets
$7,525,681
Liabilities
$1,108,961

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Tshewang Wangchuk (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Tshewang Wangchuk (Executive Director): $222,124 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To support the people of Bhutan to reach their full potential by developing local capacity and facilitating global support.

What it reported doing in 2024

Preservation of Culture - The Bhutan Foundations Preservation of Culture program is dedicated to safeguarding Bhutans rich cultural heritage through significant initiatives. Notably, the Wangduechhoeling Palace Restoration project aims to restore this historical landmark, fostering community pride and cultural identity. The Traditional Medicine program integrates Bhutanese healing practices into health education, ensuring their accessibility for future generations. Additionally, the documentation of heritage sites helps catalog and protect Bhutans unique traditions, promoting awareness and appreciation. Through these efforts, the Foundation actively strengthens Bhutans cultural identity while contributing to sustainable community development and resilience.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 87% 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.7%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • 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: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 54.6%; rating input score 55; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.5%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.39; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.7% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $222K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 55/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.