If you are planning your 2027 giving, a charity's reporting can help you decide where to investigate further. Transparency is useful because it gives donors something concrete to read alongside an appeal.
We selected ten US-headquartered charities and ordered them by transparency assessment score, shown as a percentage. These are our research assessments, not regulator ratings or a guarantee of future performance. The other measures below explain why the transparency leader need not be every donor's overall choice.
Scores tied at 85 are listed alphabetically in the underlying ranking, then displayed in reverse for the countdown. Their positions do not imply a meaningful difference in transparency.
What changes when we consider all five measures?
| Charity | Transparency score (%) | Program score (%) | Overhead score (%) | Completion score (%) | Halal score /10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baitulmaal | 80% | 81% | 19% | 82% | 8.2 |
| ICNA Relief | 84% | 94% | 6% | 88% | 8.0 |
| Zakat Foundation | 85% | 81% | 19% | 86% | 7.9 |
| Muslims Giving Back | 85% | 100% | 0% | 74% | 7.8 |
| IMAN | 85% | 100% | 0% | 86% | 8.0 |
| Human Appeal USA | 85% | 94% | 6% | 78% | 8.2 |
| CAIR | 85% | 45% | 55% | 76% | 5.9 |
| Helping Hand | 86% | 92% | 8% | 86% | 8.3 |
| Yaqeen Institute | 88% | 88% | 12% | 90% | 8.2 |
| Islamic Relief USA | 90% | 80% | 20% | 88% | 7.7 |
Program, overhead, transparency and completion values are stored 0 to 100 assessment scores shown as percentages. They are not audited financial ratios, guarantees about how donations are spent or observed project-completion rates. Islamic Relief USA leads on transparency, but Helping Hand has the highest halal score, 8.3/10, and ICNA Relief combines a 94% program score with 88% completion. Human Appeal USA matches ICNA's program and overhead scores but has a lower completion assessment, 78% versus 88%. Those differences matter more than the alphabetical order within a transparency tie.
CAIR's 5.9/10 halal score and 55% overhead score make it the weakest combined numeric case here despite its 85% transparency score. Its legal-screen finding concerns a disputed 2014 UAE designation not adopted by the US government, not a US court finding of wrongdoing. Its funding and connection checks pass; all three checks pass for the other nine charities within the recorded screening scope. A civil-rights purpose can justify inclusion without making it an unqualified financial or Shariah recommendation.
10. Baitulmaal: 80%
Palestine Emergency Fund and Orphan Sponsorship connect immediate humanitarian need with continuing support for children. Those are two different commitments: emergency work responds to a crisis, while sponsorship requires continuity.
Its score of 80 is the lowest in this selected group, but that does not mean its programmes are the least worthwhile. A transparency-first donor would place the higher-scoring records ahead; a donor focused on Palestinian relief may still find its programme mix more relevant than a higher-scoring research institute.
9. ICNA Relief: 84%
ICNA Relief combines a Food Pantry Network with a Refugee Support Program in the United States.
At 84, it sits just below the cluster of five charities scoring 85. The more important distinction for a donor may be domestic purpose: food support and refugee assistance are explicitly located in the United States. Someone intending to help US households has a stronger programme-based reason to choose it than an overseas-only appeal, regardless of that one-point gap.
8. Zakat Foundation: 85%
Its listed work includes US Domestic Zakat, Gaza Emergency Fund and Orphan Sponsorship.
The domestic Zakat project is why this is a particularly useful entry for donors who want a US distribution route without limiting their wider giving to one country. Its 85 does not separate it from the next four tied entries. What separates it is the combination of domestic Zakat, Gaza relief and ongoing sponsorship, so the chosen fund matters more than its displayed place within that tie.
7. Muslims Giving Back: 85%
Food Drives and Community Service appear in the profile. It offers a community-service option within this shortlist.
Its mission emphasizes volunteers, food drives and clothing distributions. That makes it one of the most practical-service-focused choices in the 85-point group. The financial period is 2022, so a donor should not assume the same information describes its present scale. The useful reason to consider it is its service model, not a supposed advantage over the other tied charities.
6. Inner-City Muslim Action Network: 85%
IMAN lists a Health Clinic and Green ReEntry. Its work combines community health and neighborhood support.
Both named projects are in Chicago. The combination gives IMAN a stronger fit for donors concerned about connected neighborhood needs than a list restricted to emergency supplies would. Its 85 matches several larger and differently focused organizations; the score does not erase the difference between supporting a health clinic and sponsoring a child overseas.
5. Human Appeal USA: 85%
The profile lists emergency relief, orphan sponsorship and education. It also contains named professional-fundraiser disclosures.
Its emergency, education and sponsorship programmes make it a broad humanitarian candidate. The fundraising disclosures add another dimension: the FY2024 record totals $2,201,153 in named professional-fundraiser payments. That is relevant context for a donor who values visibility into fundraising arrangements, but it does not identify which gifts financed those payments or change the meaning of the transparency score.
4. CAIR: 85%
Legal Advocacy and Know Your Rights are listed projects. Its purpose differs from delivering food or water.
Civil-rights work relies on a different delivery model from relief distribution. Legal Advocacy and Know Your Rights combine responding to rights issues with public education. Its score of 85 therefore makes it a tied transparency option, not an interchangeable alternative to every humanitarian charity beside it. It is the more relevant choice when protecting civil liberties is the donation's purpose.
3. Helping Hand for Relief and Development: 86%
Its profile lists Global Disaster Relief and Orphan Sponsorship.
The combination of Global Disaster Relief and Orphan Sponsorship matters because it covers both urgent response and continuing support. Its 86 places it one point above the tied group, a modest difference rather than evidence of dramatically better reporting. For a donor seeking those two forms of humanitarian work, its programme fit is the stronger reason to include it.
2. Yaqeen Institute: 88%
Yaqeen focuses on Islamic Research Publications.
At 88, Yaqeen is second in this selected group, but its purpose differs sharply from the relief organizations. Islamic Research Publications serves a knowledge and faith-education intention. A high score makes it interesting for donors who value that purpose and reporting together; it does not make research the right destination for money intended for emergency food.
1. Islamic Relief USA: 90%
Its listed projects span emergency response, orphan sponsorship, and water and sanitation.
At 90, it leads this selected group on the measure used for ordering. Its programme mix also covers immediate emergencies, continuing sponsorship and water infrastructure, so its first position is relevant to donors seeking both a broad humanitarian remit and the strongest stored transparency score here. The US entity's record should not be substituted for a UK or Australian affiliate's accounts.
Compare what matters to your gift
Our conclusion: Islamic Relief USA is the leading transparency-based choice within this shortlist for broad humanitarian giving. Yaqeen is the strongest-scoring education and research option. For US household needs, ICNA Relief, IMAN and Muslims Giving Back offer more directly relevant programmes than several higher-scoring international organizations.
That is why Zakat+ combines scores with projects and financial breakdowns. Pro comparison adds detail to a decision about purpose and evidence; it is not simply a contest to find the largest number.
