Muslim Public Affairs Council

Legal name: Muslim Public Affairs Council Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954675391
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, United States
Phone
323-258-MPAC
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Education N.E.C.
Affiliation
Islam

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,252,481
Expenses
$3,321,886
Assets
$6,882,464
Liabilities
$931,415

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SALAM AL-MAYARATI (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SALAM AL-MAYARATI (PRESIDENT): $207,897 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Muslim Public Affairs Council Foundation’s mission is to engage in research and development of issues related to human rights, democracy, and pluralism; educate all Americans regarding the teachings of Islam; and disburse property for charitable, scientific, or educational purposes in accordance with its 501(c)(3) mission.

What it reported doing in 2024

Dc office: defends civil liberties, advances equitable policymaking, and combats islamophobia through rapid-response advocacy, research, and data-driven monitoring. We work with policymakers and national partners to protect free speech, religious freedom, and due process while providing analysis and tools that strengthen civic participation nationwide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

SUPPORTED - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.2%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 57.1%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.9%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.07; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.3%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 55.2% of revenue deployed · 57.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported · 0 of 6 affiliation controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $208K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 55/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.