Sweet Pea Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
113688920
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Granger, IN, USA
Phone
5745961684
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$64,436
Expenses
$21,720
Assets
$812,521
Liabilities
$3,813

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PETER A LETHERMAN (President)

People named in this filing

  • PETER A LETHERMAN (President)
  • SUZANNE E LETHERMAN (Secretary)

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

The sweet pea foundation was formed to achieve three goals: 1) to establish an annual contribution fund to the ronald mcdonald house of Indiana, 2) to support organizations already established in hospitals that provide care and entertainment for sick children, and 3) to establish a relationship with hospitals and organizations in smaller communities that are caring for sick children. Assistance will be two-fold: financial contributions and donations of food, supplies, and toys.

What it reported doing in 2025

Over 27,000 toys, 15,000 books, 450 big ticket items purchased and delivered to children's hospitals in Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky and Ohio. An annual contribution to ronald mcdonald house in Indiana is made, now up to $64,500 in total. Several murals have been commissioned and painted at st. Joseph medical center in mishawaka, in. The foundation has also given over 5,285 "hugs from grace" holiday and birthday-themed activity bags to children in hospitals.over 1 million pop can tabs have been collected and recycled for ronald mcdonald charities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 18
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 80
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 16.4%; rating input score 16
  • Program expense ratio: 27.6%; rating input score 28
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 66.3%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 37.41; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 16.4% of revenue deployed · 27.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 16/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.