Underground Network Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204722214
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tampa, FL, USA
Phone
8133792965
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,246,228
Expenses
$1,092,143
Assets
$527,295
Liabilities
$51

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LUCAS PULLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LUCAS PULLEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $62,598 total reported compensation
  • BRIAN SANDERS (DIRECTOR): $22,514 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Underground network, inc. Is organized exclusively for religious and charitable purposes to rethink ecclesiology and leadership toward missional and transformational expressions of the church through consulting and leadership development.

What it reported doing in 2024

Training program: we seek to help and provide resources to new and current leaders to do ministry that they are called to do. We offer different training and services that include a summer intenstive, special events, and conferences. In 2024, we offered over 40 unique leadership development platforms tailored for microchurch leaders' needs. Over 360 missional leaders were served in the tampa bay region through our services, coaching, and convening spaces. An additional 1126 leaders across the world were serviced through coaching, consulting, conferences, and online learning environments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.6%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 71.8%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 50%; rating input score 50; 29th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.4%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.8%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.6% of revenue deployed · 71.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $784K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $63K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.