Entity and accreditation boundary
Institutional halal food service requires reliable standards and transparent certification to ensure that public schools and educational institutions receive properly verified meals. The Halal Integrity Certification program of Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc. provides this service for the New York area. Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded in 1989. It serves as an Islamic Leadership Council for over 90 mosques and institutions in the New York area. The organization operates the Halal Integrity Certification program, which focuses on certifying public schools and educational institutions. The program currently certifies over 40 schools in the NYC and Long Island regions and works with the NYC Department of Education to review and certify halal products and kitchen facilities [1] [2] [3].
The assessed certification entity is the Halal Integrity Certification program of Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc. No current halal accreditation or foreign national halal authority recognition was publicly verified for the Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York Halal Integrity Certification program. The program operates as an independent, unaccredited halal certification service focusing on institutional food service. The lack of independent Tier A accreditation means the program receives zero accreditation-derived control or operational assurance, and all scores rely on direct evidence.
Halal Industry Exposé · Comprehensive Accountability Assessment
Halal Integrity Certification program of Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc. Organizational accountability: 52% · Grade F · Insufficiently substantiated
High confidence. Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York receives 52%, Grade F. The Halal Integrity Certification program focuses on institutional food service and public schools. Current certification activity is documented, but the program operates as an independent, unaccredited halal certification service, and detailed personnel qualifications and formal impartiality policies are not publicly disclosed.
This comprehensive organizational accountability assessment combines the standardized score with the documented business-practice investigation. Flags explain evidence already scored inside the eleven fixed metrics and create no separate bonus or penalty points. The article does not rule that every certificate is invalid, prove that an undisclosed control does not exist, or infer anyone's religion or intent.
Halal Certification Body Accountability Assessment version 2.4. Source cutoff September 13, 2026. Last reviewed September 13, 2026. Raw score 51.9950 out of 100, ordinarily rounded to 52%.
Trust overview
Green flags and red flags
These flags explain evidence already scored inside the eleven fixed metrics. They do not create separate bonus or penalty points.
Green flags
Transparent legal entity and leadership
The organization demonstrates transparent legal entity status as a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit [3]. It publicly identifies its Board of Directors and the Halal Integrity Certification Program Director [4]. A public directory of certified schools is available on their website [2]. The organization also clearly states the Zabiha halal standard applied [1].
Metrics: #1, #2, #3, #8, #9
Score treatment: Supports public transparency and operational assurance.
Boundary: Evidence is limited to public filings and website statements.
Red flags
Unaccredited status and limited public methodology
The program lacks verified third-party halal accreditation or foreign authority recognition. Detailed audit methodology and formal impartiality policies are not publicly disclosed. The specific qualifications of the listed Halal Food Inspectors are not provided, and no formal complaints and appeals process is documented publicly.
Metrics: #4, #5, #6, #7, #10
Score treatment: Limits control and public transparency scores.
Boundary: Missing methodology and accreditation is not proof of invalidity.
Sources:
Accreditation examined
None · None. None. None. Accredited None; expiry None.
Scope: No current halal accreditation or foreign national halal authority recognition was publicly verified for the Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York Halal Integrity Certification program.
Third-party independence: The program operates as an independent, unaccredited halal certification service focusing on institutional food service.
Status factor 0 percent; scope factor 0 percent; independence factor 0 percent; accreditation assurance factor 0 percent.
How USDHS grades organizational accountability
Each metric is 60 percent control assurance, 25 percent operational evidence, and 15 percent public evidence. Government records and other authoritative public sources count even when the certifier does not reproduce them on its own website. A recognized accreditation of the exact entity and scope can support the control layer and part of operational evidence; it never creates public-evidence credit or transfers across entities without the required bridge. Classification bands: A, 90 to 100, strongly substantiated; B, 80 to 89, substantiated; C, 70 to 79, partially substantiated; D, 60 to 69, material gaps; F, 0 to 59, insufficiently substantiated.
Part 2
Numbered assessment metrics
1. Legal identity and operating status
Legal entity, jurisdiction, operating identity, formation, status, address, and required registrations.
100.00% of this metric; 6.00 of 6 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation provides control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 100 percent evidence factor; 3.60 points. Government and nonprofit records establish Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc., while current school-certification activity and the NYC Department of Education relationship establish the operating Halal Integrity Certification program.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 100 percent evidence factor; 1.50 points. Current school-certification activity and the NYC Department of Education relationship establish the operating Halal Integrity Certification program.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 100 percent evidence factor; 0.90 points. Public transparency is reflected in the factor.
Metric conclusion: Government and nonprofit records establish Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York, Inc., while current school-certification activity and the NYC Department of Education relationship establish the operating Halal Integrity Certification program.
2. Ownership and control
Beneficial owners, percentages, controlling persons, governance rights, related parties, and conflicts.
81.00% of this metric; 8.10 of 10 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation provides control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 85 percent evidence factor; 5.10 points. Equity ownership is inapplicable to the nonprofit. Public governing records and a named board substantiate organizational control, but complete bylaws, voting rights, related-party arrangements, and conflict records were not reviewed.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 1.88 points. Operational implementation is partially supported.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 1.13 points. Complete bylaws, voting rights, related-party arrangements, and conflict records were not reviewed.
Metric conclusion: Equity ownership is inapplicable to the nonprofit. Public governing records and a named board substantiate organizational control, but complete bylaws, voting rights, related-party arrangements, and conflict records were not reviewed.
3. Governance and accountable leadership
Named leadership, governing bodies, organizational structure, management responsibility, and accountable contacts.
60.00% of this metric; 8.40 of 14 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation provides control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 4.20 points. The board and Halal Integrity Certification program director are publicly named, and current school contracts demonstrate active accountable management. Detailed appointment, delegation, monitoring, and file-level authority records remain incomplete.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 2.63 points. Current school contracts demonstrate active accountable management.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 1.57 points. Detailed appointment, delegation, monitoring, and file-level authority records remain incomplete.
Metric conclusion: The board and Halal Integrity Certification program director are publicly named, and current school contracts demonstrate active accountable management. Detailed appointment, delegation, monitoring, and file-level authority records remain incomplete.
4. Personnel competence and authorization
Auditor, reviewer, technical-expert, and contractor qualifications, training, authorization, monitoring, and assignments.
35.00% of this metric; 6.30 of 18 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation provides control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 2.70 points. Halal food inspectors are publicly listed and current school work demonstrates activity, but their detailed qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records were not independently verified.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 2.25 points. Current school work demonstrates activity.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.35 points. Detailed qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records were not independently verified.
Metric conclusion: Halal food inspectors are publicly listed and current school work demonstrates activity, but their detailed qualifications, training, authorization, assignments, and monitoring records were not independently verified.
5. Islamic authority and halal decision
Qualified Islamic-affairs personnel, governing authority, jurisprudential basis, review roles, and final halal decisions.
35.00% of this metric; 6.30 of 18 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation provides control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 2.70 points. A named program director identified as a Sheikh and the Islamic leadership context support partial public and operational evidence. Formal qualifications, appointment, review responsibility, and traceable final halal decision authority were not independently verified.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 2.25 points. Operational implementation is partially supported.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.35 points. Formal qualifications, appointment, review responsibility, and traceable final halal decision authority were not independently verified.
Metric conclusion: A named program director identified as a Sheikh and the Islamic leadership context support partial public and operational evidence. Formal qualifications, appointment, review responsibility, and traceable final halal decision authority were not independently verified.
6. Halal audit method and facility verification
Application, scope review, documents, on-site work, ingredients, processes, findings, corrections, reports, surveillance, and recertification.
60.00% of this metric; 8.40 of 14 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation provides control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 4.20 points. The program publicly describes an initial meeting, staff training by a designated Imam, and a kitchen review. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation, but no complete controlled audit procedure or audit file was reviewed.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 2.63 points. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 1.57 points. No complete controlled audit procedure or audit file was reviewed.
Metric conclusion: The program publicly describes an initial meeting, staff training by a designated Imam, and a kitchen review. Current certified-school listings and the institutional relationship demonstrate implementation, but no complete controlled audit procedure or audit file was reviewed.
7. Impartiality and decision separation
Conflicts, consultancy separation, impartiality oversight, and separation among audit, review, and certification decisions.
18.75% of this metric; 1.50 of 8 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation provides control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 1.20 points. Nonprofit status does not by itself establish certification impartiality. No formal conflict controls, risk assessment, or separation among evaluation, review, and certification decisions was independently verified.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No formal conflict controls, risk assessment, or separation among evaluation, review, and certification decisions was independently verified.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. Public transparency is limited.
Metric conclusion: Nonprofit status does not by itself establish certification impartiality. No formal conflict controls, risk assessment, or separation among evaluation, review, and certification decisions was independently verified.
8. Standards, scheme, and certification scope
Governing standards, sectors, locations, exclusions, religious positions, certificate scope, and scheme boundaries.
60.00% of this metric; 2.40 of 4 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation provides control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.20 points. The program states its Zabiha requirement and school-food-service scope, and current institutional work demonstrates implementation. A complete certification scheme and all exclusions were not publicly reviewed.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 0.75 points. Current institutional work demonstrates implementation.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 0.45 points. A complete certification scheme and all exclusions were not publicly reviewed.
Metric conclusion: The program states its Zabiha requirement and school-food-service scope, and current institutional work demonstrates implementation. A complete certification scheme and all exclusions were not publicly reviewed.
9. Certificate traceability and mark control
Current certificate verification, identifiers, holders, sites, products, dates, status changes, and mark misuse controls.
60.00% of this metric; 2.40 of 4 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation provides control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 50 percent evidence factor; 1.20 points. A public certified-schools list provides current traceability and operational evidence, but individual certificate identifiers, validity dates, status changes, and mark-misuse controls are not fully disclosed.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 0.75 points. Operational implementation is supported by public directory.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 75 percent evidence factor; 0.45 points. Individual certificate identifiers, validity dates, status changes, and mark-misuse controls are not fully disclosed.
Metric conclusion: A public certified-schools list provides current traceability and operational evidence, but individual certificate identifiers, validity dates, status changes, and mark-misuse controls are not fully disclosed.
10. Complaints, appeals, and corrections
Complaint and appeal routes, timing, independent review, records, corrections, escalation, and non-retaliation.
18.75% of this metric; 0.38 of 2 weighted points. partially verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation provides control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. General contact information is available, but no formal complaints and appeals procedure, response times, independent review mechanism, or correction log was independently verified.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 0 percent evidence factor; 0.00 points. No formal complaints and appeals procedure, response times, independent review mechanism, or correction log was independently verified.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 25 percent evidence factor; 0.07 points. Public transparency is limited.
Metric conclusion: General contact information is available, but no formal complaints and appeals procedure, response times, independent review mechanism, or correction log was independently verified.
11. Operating history and demonstrated capacity
Corroborated timeline, current activity, clients, sectors, personnel resources, and workload matched to competent capacity.
91.00% of this metric; 1.82 of 2 weighted points. verified.
Accreditation effect: No accreditation provides control or operational assurance.
- A. Control assurance, 60 percent
- 85 percent evidence factor; 1.02 points. The organization dates to 1989 and current public records show more than forty certified schools and an institutional operating relationship, providing strong evidence of continuity and capacity.
- B. Operational evidence, 25 percent
- 100 percent evidence factor; 0.50 points. Current public records show more than forty certified schools and an institutional operating relationship, providing strong evidence of continuity and capacity.
- C. Public evidence, 15 percent
- 100 percent evidence factor; 0.30 points. Public transparency is reflected in the factor.
Metric conclusion: The organization dates to 1989 and current public records show more than forty certified schools and an institutional operating relationship, providing strong evidence of continuity and capacity.
Part 3
Conclusion
Strongest findings
- Verified 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
- Publicly identified Board of Directors and Halal Integrity Certification Program Director.
- Public directory of certified schools available on website.
Material gaps
- No current halal accreditation or foreign national halal authority recognition was publicly verified.
- Detailed personnel qualifications, formal impartiality policies, and formal complaints and appeals process are not publicly disclosed.
- Complete certification scheme and all exclusions were not publicly reviewed.
Unresolved questions
- Are there formal conflict controls, risk assessments, or separation among evaluation, review, and certification decisions?
Score interpretation
- Raw score: 51.9950. The displayed score uses ordinary rounding.
Material records are rescored under the same rules, whether they raise or lower the result. Submit documentary evidence through the secure evidence and correction form.
Conclusion
The Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York Halal Integrity Certification program is included in the national assessment series as an active, independent U.S. halal certification body specializing in institutional and school food service. The organization dates to 1989 and current public records show more than forty certified schools and an institutional operating relationship, providing strong evidence of continuity and capacity.
The program publicly describes an initial meeting, staff training by a designated Imam, and a kitchen review. However, formal qualifications, appointment, review responsibility, and traceable final halal decision authority were not independently verified. HIPS provides the analytical framework but does not replace the organization's governing certification standard.
Corrections and responsive evidence
If you represent this organization and have corrections or additional evidence, please submit documentary evidence through the [secure form](/submit-evidence?article=majlis-ash-shura-of-metropolitan-new-york-accountability-assessment). Material evidence received will be assessed under the same methodology.
A submission should identify the exact organization, statement, metric, source, effective dates, scope, responsible people, and requested correction. Publication is not conditional on a response, and no organization has a veto over a documented finding.
This assessment explains public evidence and organizational accountability. It does not replace the controlling HIPS standard, an accreditation or certification decision, a religious ruling, or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Why does Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York receive 52%, Grade F?
Methodology 2.4 gives 64 percent of the score to accountable leadership, qualified personnel, Islamic authority, and halal-specific audit capability. Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York lacks verified third-party halal accreditation, and detailed personnel qualifications, formal impartiality policies, and a formal complaints and appeals process are not publicly disclosed.
Is Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York currently accredited?
No current halal accreditation or foreign national halal authority recognition was publicly verified for the Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York Halal Integrity Certification program.
Does a low score mean every certificate is invalid?
No. This assessment measures structural accountability, transparency, and verifiable credentials, not the religious validity of specific products. The article does not rule that every certificate is invalid or infer anyone's religion or intent.
Why are private documents not included?
The methodology relies on public records and publicly verifiable evidence, while allowing the organization to submit responsive controlled documents through the secure documentary-evidence form.
How can the certifier improve its score?
Scores can be improved by publishing full ownership details, exact personnel authorizations, formal impartiality policies, and a formal complaints and appeals process.