Interfaith Council of Alameda County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
824175885
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2023
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Oakland, CA, US
Phone
5102396681
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Interfaith Coalitions
Affiliation
Interfaith

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$257,134
Expenses
$296,090
Assets
$48,679
Liabilities
$4,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEN CHAMBERS (President)
  • THOMAS HARRIS (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • KEN CHAMBERS (President): $49,365 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS HARRIS (Vice President): $1,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Interfaith Council of Alameda County (ICAC) is to promote mutual respect, understanding and engagement among the diverse faith traditions in Alameda County, California; mobilize people to serve the community; support religious liberties; promote interfaith organizations and activities; and build a just and moral community.

What it reported doing in 2023

This corporation is a religious corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law of the State of California primarily for religious purposes

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 63% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 5
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 69.5%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -15.2%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.2%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.9% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 80% of revenue deployed · 69.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $206K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $49K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2021 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.