SASi

Legal name: Suburban Adult Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
161115992
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Elma, NY, US
Phone
716-805-1555
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Developmentally Disabled Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$58,144,142
Expenses
$57,315,523
Assets
$35,887,216
Liabilities
$9,404,572

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFFREY PATERSON (PRESIDENT & C.E.O.)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFFREY PATERSON (PRESIDENT & C.E.O.): $293,771 total reported compensation
  • SUSAN MENTECKI (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER): $168,001 total reported compensation
  • ELAINE MENDRYSA (ASSOCIATE VP OF FINANCE): $164,915 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Connecting people with creative opportunities that honor their choices and fit their lives.

What it reported doing in 2025

The mission is to connect people with creative opportunities that honor their choices and fit their lives. The vision is for the people we support to be fulfilled in their lives, respected in their community, and secure in their future. This is accomplished through employment, healthcare, housing, day services, recreation, and community activities. Facilities are in angola, arcade, blasdell, cheektowaga, delevan, derby, east aurora, east concord, eden, elma, farnham, hamburg, holland, lake view, north collins, otto, sardinia, and yorkshire, New York.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.1%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 90.9%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 65th 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: 1.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 9 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 90.1% of revenue deployed · 90.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $52.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $294K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $1.8M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.