Montgomery County Muslim Foundation
Legal name: Montgomery County Muslim Found
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 208842419
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Derwood, MD, USA
- Phone
- 3017607447
- Rating
- 47
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
- Affiliation
- Islam
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $391,734
- Expenses
- $414,721
- Assets
- $32,549
- Liabilities
- $1,150
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SHAGUFTA SHAH (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- SULTAN CHOWHUR (CHAIRMAN)
- T O SHANAVAS (BOARD MEMBER)
- SADIQ QURESHI (BOARD MEMBER)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Undertake initiatives and programs to feed the hungry and homeless, help the needy among us to live a better life, take care of the needs of senior citizens and youth, and interact with other communities and faiths to promote a congenial living environment for all. Home. For the last several years, MCMF has participated in a Feed the Homeless Program run by the Interfaith Works Women Center of Rockville that provides temporary shelter to women and then helps them to lift themselves from poverty and hopelessness through prevention, stabilization and empowerment programs. MCMF has been serving breakfast, lunch and dinner for 28 days for 36 residents. Residents are served with dinners of different ethnic varieties and served by MCMF volunteers. On average, it costs MCMF approximately $13.5 per head per day for feeding the residents of the Center. In addition on an average 4-6 volunteers...
What it reported doing in 2024
Refugees Ramadan Basket
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% of its reported program spending out as grants.
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: 26
- Transparency & Controls: 64
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 27
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 29.8%; rating input score 30
- Program expense ratio: 28%; rating input score 28
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th 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; 63rd 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -5.9%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -8.1% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 29.8% of revenue deployed · 28% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported · 0 of 6 affiliation controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $94K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 28/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.