Islamic Center of Southern California

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953502914
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2133829200
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Islam
Affiliation
Islam

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,120,052
Expenses
$2,067,006
Assets
$2,663,933
Liabilities
$254,816

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

People named in this filing

  • IQBAL HASSAN (CHAIR-PERSON)
  • SADIK ALLOO (Director)
  • LENA ALSARRAF (Director)

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

The Islamic Center of Southern California embraces a rich heritage of diversity, inclusivity, civic engagement, and community building. Discover what drives us—our mission, our approach to Islam, and our vision of the American Muslim identity—all of which define the spirit of our community. Mission Statement The Islamic Center of Southern California is an independent organization whose primary goal is the emergence of an American Muslim identity. Its purpose is to practice and share the values of Islam by providing religious, educational and recreational facilities for members of the public.

What it reported doing in 2024

To offer students and families the opportunity to meet fellow muslims who share similar values and visions for their future. With this foundation, lifelong friendships emerge allowing students to have a strong sense of self within a school environment that accepts their individuality, as well as supports and their beliefs. Within our environment, young learners will develop a positive self-image as muslims and a strong sense of pride in being citizens of united states of america.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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 - Most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.3%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 53.8%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: Pass
    • 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: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.5%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.29; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -19.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 53.3% of revenue deployed · 53.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported · 0 of 6 affiliation controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.