Zaytuna College

Legal name: Zaytuna College Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330720978
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
(510) 356-4760
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Islam
Affiliation
Islam

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,812,749
Expenses
$17,808,169
Assets
$57,213,391
Liabilities
$9,149,929

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Hamza Yusuf Hanson (PRESIDENT)
  • Aisha Subhani (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Shams Khan (Director of Inst. Advancement): $218,394 total reported compensation
  • Hamza Yusuf Hanson (PRESIDENT): $179,543 total reported compensation
  • Ismael Nass Duce (Director of Emir Stein Center): $173,296 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Zaytuna College is committed to reviving the Islamic intellectual tradition, cultivating Muslim leadership, and contributing to the commonweal through public scholarship and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Undergraduate program: the college commenced its inaugural year on august 26, 2024, with a freshman class of 18 students. There are two liberal art majors offered and the college curriculum emphasizes key foundational texts; an in-depth examination of critical methodological issues; a solid command of the arabic language; a familiarity with the most important islamic sciences; and a firm grounding in the social sciences and the humanities. This curriculum also fulfills the requirements established by the most rigorous accrediting organizations of american higher education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most filed governance safeguards are in place. 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: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.6%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 54.9%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 69.2%; rating input score 69; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 14.4%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.21; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 47.6% of revenue deployed · 54.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported · 4 of 6 affiliation controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $9.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $218K · 18 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $119K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.