Sakamana
Legal name: Sakamana Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 880730611
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Chesterton, IN, USA
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Food Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $62,112
- Expenses
- $52,438
- Assets
- $32,029
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Rebecca Staal (President)
People named in this filing
- Rebecca Staal (President)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The people around us matter, and our mission is to help them flourish.
What it reported doing in 2024
Approximately 500 school children per day Monday to Friday receive fresh farm milk hard-boiled eggs ground nuts peanuts and bananas. This nutrition program offers essential protein addressing a severe deficiency in the local childrens diets. Numerous children in the area attend school without having had a proper breakfast. Several teachers have noted that Sakamana has significantly improved the students ability to concentrate on their schoolwork. Additionally this initiative creates part-time employment opportunities for local women who help with food preparation and distribution.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 90
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.9%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 99.2%; rating input score 99
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 15.6%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.3%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 83.9% of revenue deployed · 99.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $52K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.