International Cancer Advocacy Network
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 860818253
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ, USA
- Phone
- 6026180183
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Private Independent Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,722,014
- Expenses
- $1,230,745
- Assets
- $5,274,894
- Liabilities
- $20,722
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARCIA K HORN JD (PRESIDENT AN)
Highest reported compensation
- MARCIA K HORN JD (PRESIDENT AN): $207,571 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's mission is two-fold: to optimize stage iv cancer patient survival and work to attain the highest possible quality of life. Ican assists stage iv cancer patients with 1) direct patient navigation and customized advocacy services; 2) referrals to oncologists in academic medical centers as well as community practices; 3) educating patients regarding the imperative of molecular profiling; 4) expediting access to molecular profiling; 5) educating patients and their care partners regarding clinical trials and molecular matching of the patient to clinical trials; and 6) expediting patient access to compassionate use/expanded access programs. Ican is a pan-heme cancer, pan-solid tumor, pan-sarcoma, and pan-rare cancer patient advocacy organization and research advocacy organization. Ican also focuses on expanding patient access and galvanizing our collaborators to assist under-resourced patient communities in the us and abroad with customized information services. Ican annually awards r
What it reported doing in 2024
Molecular profiling connection services/clinical trials matching services: 1) advising patients on the importance of next-generation sequencing and educating them about the array of molecular profiling technologies that can either be accessed by patients and/or researchers--dna, rna, and thus multi-omics: genomics, proteomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics, methylation, immune cell studies, and so forth; 2) reviewing molecular profiling reports with patients and their care partners; 3) convening ad hoc molecular tumor boards where needed, with the input of members of ican's biomarkers council, physicians council, and drug development council; 4) educating patients about molecular tumor boards (e.g. Target cancer's track study, asco tapur study; roche navify); and, 5) connecting patients to principal investigators and study teams on a pan-tumor/pan- heme/pan-rare cancer basis if an appropriate clinical trial is a molecular match. Ican and its support groups are also engaged in the areas of decentralizing trials; "just-in-time" trials; and expediting the transfer of patients from one clinical trials site (mid-regimen) to another more convenient site (u.s. To u.s. Or eu to u.s.). Ican, the exon 20 group, and the met crusaders specialize in clinical trial accrual and retention issues as well as clinical trials site selection issues. The biomarker collaborative 1) connects patients to both the appropriate specific biomarker support group and the relevant general organizations that cover the patient's specific cancer type; and 2) educates patients about their driver mutation, amplification or fusion (if identified by the relevant laboratory's report) as well as their gene co-alterations. Ican and its support organizations each stress the importance of multi-stakeholder collaborations with research advocates, patient advocates, community advocates, clinicians, and scientists.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. 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: 65
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 80
- Sustainability: 80
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 42.9%; rating input score 43
- Program expense ratio: 91.9%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: $167.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th 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: 54.8%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.29; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 16.9%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 42.9% of revenue deployed · 91.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $208K · 6 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $167K reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 8 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.