Detroit College Access Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
934974429
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Detroit, MI, USA
Phone
3135044204
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,133,886
Expenses
$868,614
Assets
$1,266,847
Liabilities
$1,575

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Cyekeia Lee (Executive Director)
  • Jametta Lilly (President)
  • William Bill Moses (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Cyekeia Lee (Executive Director): $67,003 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Detroit College Access Network DCAN is to increase postsecondary readiness enrollment and attainment for Detroit students so that earning a college degree or credential becomes a reality for all Detroit students.

What it reported doing in 2025

College Access & Student Success Initiatives The Detroit College Access Network DCAN works to increase postsecondary readiness enrollment persistence and attainment for Detroit students through citywide coordination student support and partnership development. DCAN collaborates with schools community-based organizations higher education institutions and workforce partners to strengthen college and career pathways across Detroit. During the year DCAN supported more than 4,000 students and engaged over 500 college access professionals through FAFSA completion efforts college and career exposure activities professional development summer transition support and student success programming. DCAN also worked alongside more than 50 Detroit high schools 13 middle schools and over 60 community and institutional partners to coordinate postsecondary access and success efforts across the city. Key initiatives included Graduate 313 which provides postsecondary access and navigation support for students and families and the Detroit Alumni Success Collective DASC which strengthens persistence and completion efforts through collaboration with organizations serving college students and alumni. DCAN also facilitated citywide events mini-grant opportunities and coordinated supports designed to reduce barriers and improve postsecondary outcomes for Detroit students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 34%; rating input score 34
  • Program expense ratio: 83.5%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $75.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 63rd 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: 59.3%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.46; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.7%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 34% of revenue deployed · 83.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $725K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $67K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 42 of 42 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.