King Cobra Conservancy Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 821173317
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2019–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2017, Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2019
- Location
- Berlin, CT, USA
- Phone
- 4152790039
- Rating
- 36
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Natural Resources Conservation and Protection
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,694
- Expenses
- $5,680
- Assets
- $3,303
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOE WASILEWSKI (VICE PRESIDENT)
- NAIA HANAAH HAAST (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- JOE WASILEWSKI (VICE PRESIDENT)
- NAIA HANAAH HAAST (PRESIDENT)
- SHARON KING (BOARD MEMBER)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Dedicated to supporting ecological research and conservation initiatives aimed atdetermining the status of king cobras in the wild and identifying threats andsolutions for their future survival. We strive to develop a better understandingof the king cobra's role within the tropical asian landscape, as well as theirimportance in human culture and their impact on the lives of people.
What it reported doing in 2025
Dedicated to supporting ecological research and conservation initiatives aimed at determining the status of king cobras in the wild and identifying threats andsolutions for their future survival. We strive to develop a better understanding of the king cobra's role within the tropical asian landscape, as well as their importance in human culture and their impact on the lives of people.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -53.8%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -84.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.