Community Access National Network (CANN)
Legal name: Community Access National Network CANN
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 880370777
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Slidell, LA, USA
- Phone
- (985) 205-8011
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health, General and Financing
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,381,224
- Expenses
- $1,058,683
- Assets
- $980,621
- Liabilities
- $15,306
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jen Laws (President & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- Jen Laws (President & CEO): $156,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
CANN is a national nonprofit healthcare access policy institute. We work where policy meets patients — analyzing drug pricing programs, state legislation, and the structures that decide who can afford care.
What it reported doing in 2025
To define, promote, and improve access to healthcare services and supports for people living with HIV/AIDS and/or viral hepatitis through advocacy, education, and networking. These services must be affordable to the people who need them regardless of insurance status, income, or geographic location.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 57
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 66.5%; rating input score 66
- Program expense ratio: 86.8%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 23.4%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 14.7%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 44.9% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 34.9% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 33.1% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 14 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 66.5% of revenue deployed · 86.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $918K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $264K reported
- Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 6 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.