Nisa

Legal name: North American Islamic Shelter for the Abused

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260906163
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Palo Alto, CA, US
Phone
1-888-ASK-NISA (275-6472)
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Violence Shelters
Affiliation
Islam

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$734,766
Expenses
$161,357
Assets
$5,749,880
Liabilities
$5,246

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TAHIR ANWAR (PRESIDENT/DIREC)

People named in this filing

  • TAHIR ANWAR (PRESIDENT/DIREC)
  • HUMA QURESHI (BOARD MEMBER)
  • AMINA ANWAR (Treasurer)

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

To alleviate challenges related to abuse and domestic violence.

What it reported doing in 2025

NISA works to empower victims of domestic violence by providing information, support services, advocacy, counseling and shelter with the utmost confidentiality. NISA provides shelter & Support to several abused in Bay Area. 1. Helpline: Organization has a helpline to provide mental support to the abused women2. Support Services: a) NISA Home - emergency and short term housing b) Financial Assistance c)Social Services (assistance with: public assistance, section 8 housing, cal-works, medical etc.) d. Transportation Services e) Career Development3. Advocacy: Community Outreach & Education4. Counseling Services: 5. Education: Anger Management and Parenting classes

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 92
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 15.9%; rating input score 16
  • Program expense ratio: 72.5%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $41.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th 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: 78%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 35.63; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 15.9% of revenue deployed · 72.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported · 0 of 6 affiliation controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $117K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 16/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.