Arctic Ice Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264434262
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Redwood City, CA, USA
Phone
4152751873
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$351,717
Expenses
$748,869
Assets
$302,871
Liabilities
$12,775

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Annette Eros (CEO)
  • Steve Zornetzer (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Annette Eros (CEO): $232,043 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Through innovative scientific research and the development of safe geoengineering methods, AIP addresses the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice, a critical factor in global climate regulation. Preserving the Arctics reflective ice cover helps mitigate global warming and safeguard ecosystems. AIP is developing environmentally safe Surface Albedo Modification (SAM) techniques using materials like hollow glass microspheres (HGMs) to enhance the reflectivity of sea ice. This increased reflectivity can disrupt the feedback loops that accelerate ice melt, contributing to the stabilization of Arctic temperatures and the global climate. Grounded in scientific rigor, safety, and a commitment to restoring the Arctic ecosystem, AIP collaborates with diverse stakeholders to deliver innovative and responsible solutions to one of the planets most urgent climate challenges.

What it reported doing in 2024

CLIMATE MODELING - To assess the effectiveness of potential deployment, Arctic Ice Project collaborates with a world-class climate modeling team to perform the complex computer simulations required for publication. These simulations focus on targeted strategic areas of the Arctic Sea, using global climate modelslarge, sophisticated programs that require ongoing development by expert teams. The modeling work involves running numerical simulations to study the impact of spreading highly reflective silica microspheres (Hollow Glass Microspheres - HGMs) in specific Arctic regions. The goal is to identify optimal deployment locations and timing while evaluating large-scale climate effects. Preliminary results show that applying a thin layer of HGMs lowers both Arctic and global average surface temperatures. We partnered with with NASA Earth Exchange (NEX) to leverage NASAs state-of-the-art supercomputers and analytical tools to conduct these simulations. This affiliation with a leading research organization provided essential computational resources, with costs limited to our personnel. Our climate modeling efforts have been presented at annual conferences, and our findings have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

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 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 79%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -112.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 79% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $592K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $232K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.