Icna Dallas

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271512525
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richardson, TX, USA
Phone
9722659794
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.
Affiliation
Islam

Reported finances

Revenue
$957,150
Expenses
$841,527
Assets
$1,162,158
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ASIF KHAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • REHAN AHMED (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RIYAZ LAREEF (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MANSOOR SYED (PRESIDENT)
  • AHSAN MOHAMMED (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • TARIQ YOUNUS (SHURA MEMBER)
  • SABUR KHAN (SHURA MEMBER)
  • ASIF KHAN (VICE PRESIDENT)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We provide religious guidance, workshop, prayer services, print religious material for free distribution.

What it reported doing in 2024

Embrace project: ICNA Dallas provide a platform for the newly American Muslim for learning, gettogether, assistance and help they need. ICNA Dallas continues providing services through thisproject. Oak Cliff Project: ICNA Dallas has a project to empower minority in a low income neighborhood. We have multiple people helping for this project and the neighborhood has been benefiting fromthe service. Dawah: This is a project where ICNA Dallas provides any questions related to Islam by providingfree materials and other assistance to the non Muslim. ICNA Center: ICNA Dallas rented a place to worship and facilities other programs for theorganization. Financial Assistance: ICNA Dallas provides financial assistance to other nonprofit organization orindividual. Assistance for the refugees: ICNA Dallas provides assistance through education, training and workwith other nonprofit organization to help the refugees in Dallas metroplex. We continue working onthis project.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.1%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 43.3%; rating input score 43
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 20.6%; rating input score 21; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.1%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.38; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.1% of revenue deployed · 43.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $365K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 21 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.