Underground Ne

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
862572246
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Bloomfield, CT, USA
Phone
2032971368
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Victims' Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$589,847
Expenses
$603,598
Assets
$103,594
Liabilities
$4,469

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nadine Thomas (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nadine Thomas (Executive Director): $85,000 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 Underground New England is a faith-based non-profit organization that exists to eradicate human trafficking in Connecticut and New England through awareness prevention and intentional survivor support.

What it reported doing in 2025

Dult Mentor Program: Trained & qualified peer mentors walk alongside adult survivors 18+ of human trafficking and sexual exploitation across the entire state of CT. Mentors help survivors rebuild their lives by providing community based comprehensive services including intensive case management housing navigation victim advocacy basic needs provision peer services psycho-education life skills training job coaching and community support. Staff also provide information & referrals emergency housing and crisis case management. In 2025 we served 54 individuals and 14 dependents enrolled 35 in long-term services in AMP and provided over 860 hours of mentoring and case management. 2 individuals completed the program. We provided 244 nights of emergency housing and helped 25 individuals achieve safe housing within 6 months of referral. 21 individuals were assisted with exiting exploitative situations emergency support was provided at the point of crisis and stabilizing services were initiated. 100% of AMP participants obtained food clothing and mental and physical healthcare. 100% of participants accessed a safe and supporting community; 88% of clients increased their income; 83% improved overall wellness. Participants set a collective 112 smart goals; 68 goals were completed.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 43
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.5%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 55.2%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.3%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.1%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.3% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 42.4% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15.4% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.5% of revenue deployed · 55.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.