Kentucky Reptile Zoo
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 611237279
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Slade, KY, USA
- Phone
- 6066639160
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Zoo, Zoological Society
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $562,590
- Expenses
- $617,552
- Assets
- $225,156
- Liabilities
- $26,333
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JAMES HARRISON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- KRISTEN WILEY (TREASURER): $69,055 total reported compensation
- JAMES HARRISON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $9,985 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of Kentucky reptile zoo is the production of venom towards pharmaceutical research and the production of antiserum, the antidote for venomous snakebites. The Kentucky reptile zoo also is involved in educating the public about reptiles and their importance to the world's fragile ecosystems through observation, lectures, and demonstration.
What it reported doing in 2024
Education - approximately 11,970 individuals attended lecture programs and 17,304 visited the zoological exhibits. College interns assist in education. The organization provided 1,354.76 grams of venom to 17 different clients for medical/scientific research. Provided continuing biological research for 1 researchers by allowing them access to animals housed at the zoo.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 62
- Sustainability: 21
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 98.3%; rating input score 98
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 75%; rating input score 75; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -9.8%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.8%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 98.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $607K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $69K · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.