Islamic Society of West Valley
Legal name: Iswv
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 462961609
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
- Location
- Canoga Park, CA, US
- Phone
- +1 (818) 514-4798
- Rating
- 52
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Islam
- Affiliation
- Islam
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $858,174
- Expenses
- $783,845
- Assets
- $1,352,762
- Liabilities
- $614,258
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
People named in this filing
- NAUMAN KHAN (BOARD MEMBER AND TREASURER)
- WAKAS SALIM (BOARD MEMBER AND SECRETARY)
- YUSUF KHAN (BOARD MEMBER AND CHAIRMAN)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
ISWV’s objective is to instill closeness to Allah in our community through providing an open and welcoming masjid that fosters spiritual development, promotes a comprehensive Islamic identity, strengthens communal bonds, represents Muslims with respect and dignity, and impacts the positive growth of our society.
What it reported doing in 2025
Our Ramadan program provides a safe and peaceful place of worship during the holy month of Ramadan for members of our community. This includes hosting daily prayers, late night prayers, community dinners, spiritual lectures and events throughout the month as well as providing 2-3 meals a week for families that attend. Approximately 150 families attend our facility during this month.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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
MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 27
- Transparency & Controls: 64
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 53
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 22.1%; rating input score 22
- Program expense ratio: 24.2%; rating input score 24
- Fundraising efficiency: $26.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 8.7%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.73; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 22.1% of revenue deployed · 24.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported · 3 of 6 affiliation controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $190K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 22/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 24/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.