Ican Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 341575839
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Canton, OH, USA
- Phone
- 3304559100
- Rating
- 89
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,105,335
- Expenses
- $3,989,749
- Assets
- $9,284,877
- Liabilities
- $3,326,205
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DANIELLE HALACHOFF-FRYE (PRESIDENT)
- JULIE SPARKS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JULIE SPARKS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $106,910 total reported compensation
- LAURA WEISGARBER (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $92,153 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Ican housing helps people grow by providing housing and supportive services to improve their lives and connect with the community.
What it reported doing in 2024
Ican housing provides housing, supportive services, homeless prevention, workforce development and street outreach, across stark county. Housing programs include permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, affordable housing and an adult residential facility. Ican housing owns, manages and maintains 45 scattered-site residential properties across stark county. The properties include single family homes and multi-unit buildings and total 141 units. Participants served by permanent supportive housing include individuals or families who were homeless with an individual or a family member who has been diagnosed with a severe and persistent mental illness. Eligibility is dependent on a history of homelessness and an income level at or below 35% of average median income. Participants living in affordable housing are eligible if their income is either 50% or 80% depending on the property. A number of these properties are for veterans. The rapid rehousing and housing first leasing assistance programs provide rental subsidies with participants paying no more than 30% of their income including utilities and the controlled rent. These participants rent from private landlords. The adult residential facility houses eight adults whose disabilities have rendered them unable to live fully independently. The facility provides 24-hour staffing. The property manager and leasing administrators guide participants through the leasing process. The maintenance team has the range of skills to make most repairs, outsourcing some and ensuring units meet safety and quality standards.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some related-organization disclosures are missing and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 86.8%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 89.3%; rating input score 89
- Fundraising efficiency: $48.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0
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: 2.8%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.33; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 86.8% of revenue deployed · 89.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 16 people listed
- Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.