· Private foundation
Yeshe Khorlo Foundation (In Care of Aragon Trust Company)
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k3 grants · $90k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $220k
- $250k+1 grant · $4.5M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| GADEN PHODRAMG FOUNDATION OF THE DALAI LAMA | $4,500,000 |
| PALPUNG MUNISHASAN DHARMCHAKRA SANGH | $100,000 |
| THE TIBET CENTER INC | $70,000 |
| RIGHTS ACTION LAB INC | $50,000 |
| MAITRIPA COLLEGE | $40,000 |
| THE RATO DRATSANG FOUNDATION | $30,000 |
| LAMA YESHE WISDOM ARCHIVE INC | $20,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your US giving — 41% of grant dollars ($3.7M). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 59% that went abroad ($5.4M) is mapped below.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 92% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Beyond the US — 59% of all-years giving ($5.4M)
2 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990 filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
9 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 6% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.5M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- EUEmory University2× · 2020–2021 · $2.0M · revenue +54%
- TTTHE TIBET CENTER INC6× · 2020–2025 · $460k · revenue +17% · 51% of their budget
- RARIGHTS ACTION LAB INC5× · 2020–2025 · $150k · revenue +83%
Funded once
- TDTHE DALAI LAMA TRUSTone grant, 2023 · $500k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $100k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $100k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The Treasury of Lives is biographical encyclopedia of Tibet, Inner Asia and Himalayan Region. The Treasury provides an accessible and well-researched biography of a wide range of figures, from Buddhist masters to artists and political…
Defending civil and human rights secured by law
Buddhist Meditation and Study
Religious culture and education, meditation and religions comparative study
The purpose is to protect and promote human rights of Tibetan people.
The nyingma institute was founded in 1972 by tibetan teacher and author tarthang tulku to present the teachings of the tibetan tradition to the west. (see schedule o for full statement)
To maximize the effectiveness of the worldwide tibet movement, which is dedicated to ending human rights violations in tibet, and to actively supporting the tibetan people's right under international law to determine their own political,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is International Campaign for Tibet and the most unlike its peers is The Rato Dratsang Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 14 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The Gere Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Yeshe Khorlo Foundation (In Care of Aragon Trust Company) funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Yeshe Khorlo Foundation (In Care of Aragon Trust Company)?
Find your warmest path to Yeshe Khorlo Foundation (In Care of Aragon Trust Company) 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.