Shirdi Sai Society Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471465256
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2020
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Rochester Hills, MI, US
Phone
(248) 564-2702
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hinduism
Affiliation
Hinduism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$242,414
Expenses
$156,813
Assets
$475,756
Liabilities
$15,009

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ASHOK BADDI (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUVARNA GHANTASAL (TREASURER): $23,100 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Shirdi Sai Society Trust firmly believes in the Motto "Service to Humanity is Service to God". With this in mind, we are committed to services through following four pillars: 1. Charity 2. Satsang 3. Vidyadanam (Sai Vidyalay) 4. Annadanam. Sai Vidyalay Students and Adult Volunteers go to Gleaners Food Distribution center to provide volunteer services. 2. SATSANG: To Organize Bhajans, Bhakti Geet and Spiritual Discourses at Temple. Charity. Satsang helps to nurture the sattvikta and win over the rajasik and tamasik elements within and without us as otherwise, it becomes difficult to even think about God and spiritual practices. One also gets the benefit of growth of Divine Consciousness (Chaitanya) and...

What it reported doing in 2020

Peformed community services

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 99% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 39
  • Accountability: 45
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.7%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 35.3%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.03; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.7%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.4% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 37.6% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 64.7% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $157K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $23K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 20 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2017 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.