Field to Healed Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822455297
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Phone
4803266023
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$841,114
Expenses
$420,181
Assets
$1,711,408
Liabilities
$939,679

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sue Sisley (Executive Director)
  • Susan Ousterman (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Sue Sisley (Executive Director)
  • John Lehnstrom (Chairman)
  • Kendric Speagle (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Field to Healed Foundation supports rigorous, independent research and responsible education concerning investigational therapies that may offer new possibilities for people living with serious or treatment-resistant health conditions. As the nonprofit partner of Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI), the Foundation connects charitable support with the scientific, regulatory, and operational work required to move promising ideas toward lawful, carefully controlled research. Continued on Schedule O.

What it reported doing in 2025

During 2025, Field to Healed Foundation spent $405,158 on its single charitable program supporting Scottsdale Research Institute's development of lawful, evidence-based investigational therapies. With support from approximately 45 volunteers, the Foundation advanced on FDA-regulated whole-mushroom psilocybin research program with an estimated development value exceeding $630,000. Accomplishments included advancing one standardized investigational product; preparing regulatory and chemistry, manufacturing, and controls documentation; conducting analytical, microbiological, batch-release, and stability testing; improving quality systems and facilities; and preparing for a Phase 1 study expected to enroll approximately 24 veterans and first responders. The immediate objective was to generate manufacturing, quality, and safety information required for regulated human research. The longer-term goal is to produce independent clinical evidence and lawful access pathways for patients with serious or treatment-resistant conditions. Field to Healed provided charitable funding and program support; SRI performed the regulated work under Dr. Sue Sisley's scientific leadership.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 60% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. 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: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.2%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 96.4%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $105.51 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 50%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.07; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.55; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 111.9% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 59.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 87.2% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.2% of revenue deployed · 96.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $405K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $248K reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.