Michigan College Access Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364619621
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Lansing, MI, USA
Phone
5173161713
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,234,642
Expenses
$13,170,756
Assets
$4,933,034
Liabilities
$1,169,165

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RYAN FEWINS-BLISS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CYEKEIA LEE LEFT JULY 2025 (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • RYAN FEWINS-BLISS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $223,623 total reported compensation
  • JAMIE DOAN (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $176,085 total reported compensation
  • CYEKEIA LEE LEFT JULY 2025 (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $133,296 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our goal: increase the percentage of Michigan residents with postsecondary certificates or degrees to 60 percent by the year 2030.

What it reported doing in 2024

Detroit college access network (dcan) is a collaborative network between local schools, organizations, and the community. The mission of the network is to promote higher education in detroit and make a college degree or credential a reality for students in detroit.during the year ended september 30, 2025, dcan received 501(c)3 exemption status under the internal revenue code. Thus, as of june 2025, the organization no longer serves as its fiscal sponsor. All funds held by the organization were transferred to dcan during the fiscal year ended september 30, 2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 84% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 85% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 79.6%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $52.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 82.5%; rating input score 83; 22nd 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; 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: -59.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 79.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $10.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $224K · 19 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $692K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 78 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 75 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.