Institute for Social Policy and Understanding

The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) has emerged as one of the most influential U.S.-based research organizations dedicated to the empirical study of American Muslim communities. Founded in the early 2000s, ISPU occupies a distinctive niche at the intersection of social science, public policy, and community engagement. Its work is characterized by recurring national surveys—most notably the American Muslim Poll—as well as policy toolkits, issue analyses, and practitioner-oriented guidance aimed at improving public understanding and institutional competence in dealing with Muslim populations. ISPU positions itself as a nonpartisan, evidence-driven organization that seeks to inform government officials, journalists, educators, and civic leaders, while maintaining strong partnerships with community organizations and academic researchers. Over the past decade, ISPU’s data and analyses have increasingly been referenced in media reporting, public debates, and government-facing resources, giving it a growing role in shaping policy conversations surrounding religious pluralism, civic engagement, and Islamophobia in the United States. This overview contextualizes the institution’s mission, methods, and influence, and provides an analytical foundation for the more detailed assessment that follows.

1. Identification & mission

The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) is a U.S.-based non-profit research and education organization focused on American Muslims and public policy (ISPU, n.d.-a). Founded in the early 2000s and operating from Washington, D.C. and Dearborn, Michigan, ISPU states its mission as providing “objective research and education about American Muslims to support well-informed dialogue and decision-making,” with the aims of safeguarding pluralism and facilitating full civic participation by Muslim Americans (ISPU, n.d.-a).

2. Leadership and institutional profile

ISPU’s research leadership has included prominent scholars such as Dalia Mogahed, who has served as Director of Research and whose prior roles include leadership at the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and advisory roles in U.S. government contexts (Mogahed, n.d.). The organization operates with a small in-house research staff augmented by affiliated fellows and external collaborators; it positions itself as nonpartisan and nonprofit (ISPU, n.d.-a) (Mogahed, n.d.).

3. Core activities and thematic focus

ISPU’s flagship activity is the American Muslim Poll, a recurring, large-sample survey that measures demographics, civic participation, political attitudes, experiences of discrimination, and what ISPU calls the “Islamophobia Index.” The poll has been conducted repeatedly (e.g., 2016–2025 cycles) and is designed to compare American Muslims with other religious and non-religious groups in the U.S. (ISPU, 2025). Beyond polling, ISPU produces policy toolkits (such as the Government Administrators Toolkit), briefing books for policymakers, issue analyses (on discrimination, political participation, and current events), and community-oriented resources intended for journalists, public servants, and civic institutions (ISPU, 2025; ISPU, n.d.-b).

4. Methodology & data practices

ISPU’s American Muslim Poll reports have included detailed methodological appendices and partner descriptions. The 2025 poll, for example, was conducted using multiple panel sources and fielded using NORC at the University of Chicago’s AmeriSpeak panel, Generation Lab, and Dynata, with final weights calibrated using NORC’s TrueNorth method (ISPU, 2025; NORC in ISPU Appendix, 2025). The reports typically explain sample sizes, oversamples of Muslim and other faith groups, modes (web/phone), and weighting procedures, indicating attention to contemporary survey-research standards (ISPU, 2025; ISPU Appendix, 2025).

5. Outputs & representative publications

Representative outputs include multi-year American Muslim Poll reports (e.g., 2022 and 2025 full reports and briefs), the Engaging American Muslims: A Briefing Book for Policymakers, the Government Administrators Toolkit co-developed with Yaqeen Institute, and issue reports on discrimination and media coverage (ISPU, 2022; ISPU, 2025; ISPU, n.d.-b). These outputs are publicly available as PDFs and web reports and combine quantitative findings with policy recommendations and implementation guidance for practitioners. (ISPU, 2022; ISPU, 2025; ISPU, n.d.-b).

6. Policy engagement and evidence of government use

ISPU explicitly targets policymakers and public administrators as audiences. Its briefing book and toolkits are designed for “members of Congress, the Department of Justice, the White House, law enforcement, and other policymakers” and are used in trainings, briefings, and resource libraries for public servants (ISPU, n.d.-b). Secondary indicators of influence include frequent media citations of ISPU polling (which informs public debate) and ISPU’s own reporting of outreach to government audiences (ISPU, n.d.-b; InfluenceWatch, n.d.). While tracing a direct causal line from a given ISPU report to a specific law is challenging in public records, ISPU’s materials are explicitly oriented toward official use and its methods are designed to meet the evidentiary needs of policy actors. (ISPU, n.d.-b; InfluenceWatch, n.d.).

7. Stakeholder engagement and ethics

ISPU frequently collaborates with community organizations and faith-based research partners (e.g., the Yaqeen Institute) when preparing toolkits and briefings, indicating an emphasis on co-production and community consultation for applied guidance (ISPU, n.d.-b). Its polling instruments include oversamples and subgroup analyses intended to reflect intra-communal diversity (by race, age, and nationality origins) and its publicly posted methodology documents demonstrate adherence to standard survey-research ethics and transparency (ISPU Appendix, 2025). Nonetheless, ISPU does not always publish unrestricted microdata for general secondary analysis, and the degree to which sensitive use-restrictions are applied is not always fully detailed on public pages—an issue discussed further below. (ISPU Appendix, 2025; ISPU, n.d.-b).

8. Funding, transparency, and governance

ISPU reports philanthropic funders and institutional supporters (e.g., foundations that have supported programming), and it publishes annual summaries and organizational one-pagers describing activities (ISPU, n.d.-c). External profiles note ISPU’s outreach to government and public officials (InfluenceWatch, n.d.). Although ISPU discloses several institutional funders, publicly available materials do not always provide a highly granular project-level breakdown of funding percentages by donor on every report; as with many non-profits, greater financial granularity (audited project-level statements) would strengthen transparency. (ISPU, n.d.-c; InfluenceWatch, n.d.).

9. Strengths — what ISPU does well

Empirically, ISPU’s core strength is its recurring, methodologically documented national polling on American Muslims, which provides rare longitudinal and comparative data about an understudied population (ISPU, 2025). ISPU also excels at policy translation: its toolkits and briefing books convert empirical findings into actionable guidance for government officials and civic institutions, filling a gap for culturally competent public-sector materials (ISPU, n.d.-b). ISPU’s collaborations with established survey firms (e.g., NORC for AmeriSpeak) enhance methodological credibility (ISPU Appendix, 2025).

10. Limitations and critiques

From an academic perspective, ISPU’s orientation toward applied policy can limit theoretical innovation: its reports prioritize descriptive and policy-oriented findings over novel theoretical contributions to sociology or religious studies (ISPU, 2025). Several observers and commentators have also warned of potential risks: (a) data intended to reduce prejudice could be repurposed in security contexts in ways that harm civil liberties, and (b) samples and modes—despite oversamples—may still underrepresent less-connected or non-English-speaking subpopulations (CJR, 2019; ISPU Appendix, 2025). Finally, although ISPU discloses major funders, more detailed, project-level financial transparency would reduce perceived risks of agenda-setting by funders. (CJR, 2019; ISPU Appendix, 2025).

11. Controversies and public debate

ISPU’s findings (for example, rising Islamophobia indices and patterns of discrimination) have been covered in international media and used to shape public debate about Islamophobia and civic participation (Al Jazeera, 2018). At the same time, such findings have generated debate over interpretation—for instance, how to weigh evidence of “internalized” bias within communities versus structural drivers of prejudice—an ongoing scholarly and public discussion (Al Jazeera, 2018).

12. Recommendations for researchers and policymakers

For researchers: ISPU would increase its utility to the academic community by making de-identified microdata available under controlled conditions for secondary analysis and by encouraging ISPU-affiliated scholars to publish more peer-reviewed theoretical articles that build on ISPU’s empirical base (ISPU Appendix, 2025). For policymakers: ISPU should accompany any toolkit or briefing shared with law-enforcement or security agencies with explicit “ethical use” guidance to minimize possible securitization or misuse of community data. Finally, additional project-level donor disclosure would strengthen confidence among skeptical stakeholders. (ISPU Appendix, 2025; ISPU, n.d.-b).

13. Overall assessment

ISPU occupies a distinctive and valuable niche as a practitioner-oriented research institute that supplies rigorous empirical data about American Muslims and translates findings into actionable guidance for public officials and civic leaders. Its methodological partnerships and public documentation of methods are strengths. To increase its value for scholarly critique and to reduce risks of misuse of its findings, ISPU could expand microdata access under appropriate protections, deepen financial transparency, and more explicitly guard against uses of its data that might lead to profiling or securitization.