Song and Spirit Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271828848
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Royal Oak, MI, USA
Phone
2488953011
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Interfaith Coalitions
Affiliation
Interfaith

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$95,766
Expenses
$98,184
Assets
$52,753
Liabilities
$3,533

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY GILHULY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • STEVEN S KLAPER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY GILHULY (VICE PRESIDENT): $40,900 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Song and spirit brings people of different faith traditions together to engage in creative service through education, music, art, and social outreach to those in need.

What it reported doing in 2025

The careavan outreach program assists adults and children living at or below the poverty level. We provide food, clothing and hygiene items to gods storehouse a community outreach and food pantry in detroit. We expanded existing interfaith partnerships and developed new ones with diverse organizations serving the disadvantaged throughout metro detroit. S&s snackpax provides children and others experiencing food insecurity with a lunch bag containing a protein bar fruit cup, and juice box. These snackpax are also distributed to adults and children who found themselves in dire circumstances due to to the pandemic carepax include winter a hat, gloves, hand/toe warmers socks, or rain poncho cap, lip bulmand hygiene kits are given directly

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.2%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 3rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -2.5%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 41.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.4% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.2% of revenue deployed · 70.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $26K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $41K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.