· Private foundation
Chintamani Foundation
Its FY2022 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2022.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| KILUNG FOUNDATION | $8,600 |
| Individual grant recipient | $7,500 |
| NATIVE ANIMAL RESCUE | $5,504 |
| DUDUJOM INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION | $3,000 |
| KANGYUR RINPOCHE FOUNDATION | $1,151 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,008 |
| RIPA LADRANG FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
| VAJRAYANA FOUNDATION | $828 |
| TARA MANDALA | $791 |
| DAKINI LAND FOUNDATION | $608 |
| ARUNACHALA ECO SOCIETY CHILDRENS | $605 |
| KATHOK SHEDRUPLING | $509 |
| LOTUS OUTREACH INTERNATIONAL | $500 |
| MAYA FOUNDATION | $413 |
| YESHE KHORLO | $300 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
US giving: 81% of grant dollars ($373k). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 19% that went abroad ($85k) is mapped below.
Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 95% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
How this is measured
Which US states its grants reach
Beyond the US: 19% of all-years giving ($85k)
5 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
How this is measured
Where the work is directed
The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.
About 12% of Chintamani Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +117% since the first grant, against +17% for those funded once.
34 repeat relationships: 18 still active in FY2022, 16 since wound down; 12 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2022, 61% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- NANATIVE ANIMAL RESCUE3× · 2017–2022 · $7k · revenue +173%
- RLRipa Ladrang Foundation5× · 2017–2022 · $6k · revenue +117%
- AFAmitabha Foundation4× · 2018–2022 · $2k · revenue +53%
Funded once
- PMPREGNANT MARE RESCUEone grant, 2018 · $11k · revenue +6%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $5k
- TTTaiwan Taichung Centreone grant, 2018 · $3k
How this is measured
Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
Closest unfunded matches
The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Buddhist Meditation and Study
Preserve and Disemminate Bodhichitta Buddha Spirit
The mission of Namgyal Monastery Dharma Center is to be a transformational hub of compassionate and human education for all.
Fund Various projects of Charitable Nature
This organization dedicates to provide opportunities for practice and instruction of the buddha dharma in the tibetan buddhist tradition by establishing and maintaining a buddhist center for teachings, practices, retreats and other smiliar…
To support the development and growth of the Buddha's teachings in the Americas.
The Gyan Foundation is dedicated to preserving and disseminating the teachings of the Buddha in general and those of the glorious Sakyapa tradition in particular.
How this is measured
17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.
How this is measured
Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 17 of the 108 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.
Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding
A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
Co-funders
Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Timely Rain · The Owsley Brown III Philanthropic Found · Tess Evans Charitable Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Network for Good · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Chintamani Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chintamani Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Chintamani Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Chintamani Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.
Play a game based on Chintamani’s filings →