Pillars Fund
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 810983087
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Chicago, IL, USA
- Phone
- 7085298774
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and Fund Distribution
- Affiliation
- Islam
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $17,032,203
- Expenses
- $4,512,117
- Assets
- $20,878,379
- Liabilities
- $311,173
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Kashif Shaikh (Executive Dir.): $318,293 total reported compensation
- Kalia Abiade (Executive VP): $232,011 total reported compensation
- Arij Mikati (VP of Programs): $208,201 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Pillars Fund amplifies the leadership, narratives, and talents of Muslims in the United States to advance opportunity and justice for all.
What it reported doing in 2025
Pillars' largest program services include its fellowship programs, which identify and invest in Muslim leaders across the arts, media, and creative industries through a competitive selection process evaluating creative practice, leadership potential, and mission alignment, providing fellows with financial support, mentorship, and connections to funders and industry partners; a storytelling prize, which recognizes and funds pioneering storytellers advancing more accurate representation of Muslim communities in arts and media, with recipients selected for the originality and impact of their work and awarded unrestricted funding and public recognition; community building events that convene artists, community members, and partner organizations around shared cultural and civic experiences not otherwise widely supported; and research that documents the state of Muslim representation and leadership in arts, media, and civic life to inform the field's understanding of where investment and advocacy are most needed.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 38
- Transparency & Controls: 91
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 78
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 17.5%; rating input score 17
- Program expense ratio: 65.4%; rating input score 65
- Fundraising efficiency: $26.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 73.5%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.63; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 28%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 23% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 23.5% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 24.9% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 17.5% of revenue deployed · 65.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $318K · 15 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 11 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 17/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.