Table For Two USA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262512855
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2009
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
3183599736
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nutrition

Reported finances

Revenue
$256,227
Expenses
$250,378
Assets
$559,215
Liabilities
$17,213

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mayumi Uejima-Carr (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mayumi Uejima-Carr (President): $60,480 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The organizations mission is to address the global food imbalance and other health issues related to unhealthy eating. Table for Two USA was formed to address dual social concerns of hunger in developing countries and obesity in developed countries by contributing meals to developing countries when people in developed countries choose healthy meals at participating donor organizations, thereby encouraging healthy eating in developed countries and simultaneously allaying hunger in developing countries.

What it reported doing in 2025

Table For Two USAs (TFT) food and nutrition education program develops a curriculum that offers Japanese-inspired food education. The program teaches students the principles of Japanese food culture while providing practical, hands-on learning in preparing healthy, nutritious foods, helping fill the gap created by the lack of food education in many U.S. schools. In 2025, TFT delivered 330 in-person classes and events, reaching 6,729 participants across the United States. In addition, the organization continued its on-demand university program, which was used by 20 to 30 universities nationwide. Through its Wa-Sho Seeds partnership program, 41 teachers across 20 states delivered Wa-Sho education in their communities. - TFTs Onigiri Action campaign provides school meals to children in need in the U.S. and East Africa. For every onigiri (rice ball) photo posted online, TFT partner organizations fund five school meals. Since its launch in 2015, the Onigiri Action campaign has provided over 10 million school meals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.8%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $75.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 64.1%; rating input score 64; 47th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.3%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.23; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.2%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.8% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $215K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.