Student Assistance Services Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133264779
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tarrytown, NY, USA
Phone
9143321300
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alcohol, Drug and Substance Abuse, Dependency Prevention and Treatment

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,105,347
Expenses
$7,108,007
Assets
$1,811,278
Liabilities
$1,218,302

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELLEN MOREHOUSE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELLEN MOREHOUSE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $178,485 total reported compensation
  • ANDREA FALLICK (DIRECTOR-SCHOOL BASED PROGRAM): $165,164 total reported compensation
  • BEVELRY PIERCE (DIRECTOR - MENTAL HEALTH): $151,595 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Student assistance services corporation provides substance use and bullying prevention, and intervention activities for youth, parents, professionals, and community groups; and provides mental health treatment for adolescents.

What it reported doing in 2024

Project success is an alcohol and other-drug prevention/early intervention program implemented in westchester county high schools and junior high/middle schools, through funding from the New York state office of addiction services and supports (oasas) and the participating schools. During the 2024-2025 school year, approximately 5,508 middle and high school students received prevention counseling and education program services. Thousands more participated or were exposed to school-wide prevention activities. The goals of the program are to prevent students from using alcohol and other drugs, to increase school and community awareness about the dangers of adolescent substance use, to eliminate alcohol and other drug use among those who are using by educating them about the negative consequences of their use, and to empower non-using adolescents to strengthen the factors that protect against the risks of substance use. In 2024-2025, 97% of students who participated in counseling increased or maintained their perception of the risk of harmfulness of alcohol and other drugs. The program is recognized as one of the few prevention/early intervention programs that has been able to document a positive impact on reducing alcohol and drug use among high risk students in high schools. Ninety six percent (96%) of students seen four or more times in individual or group sessions in 2024-2025 reduced the frequency of alcohol or marijuana use (or remained abstinent) during the last 30 days after program participation.project success is being replicated in nineteen states, and other counties in New York state. The westchester student assistance program (sap) was adapted for residential facilities (rsap) and in 1999 was designated by the substance abuse and mental health services administration (samhsa) center for substance abuse prevention (csap) as an exemplary program. The sap was modified to incorporate additional prevention program components and named project success and received the same designation in 2000. Both rsap and project success are highly rated programs on samhsa's former national registry of evidence based programs and practices. Project success was one of the highest rated substance use prevention programs on the pew macarthur results first clearinghouse.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 87.9%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.25; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.67; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.7%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88% of revenue deployed · 87.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $6.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $178K · 15 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.