The Polar Education Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 205853356
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2014
- Location
- New York, Chelsea, Quebec, CA
- Phone
- 8198273300
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $437,001
- Expenses
- $381,151
- Assets
- $63,039
- Liabilities
- $11,375
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GEOFF GREEN (PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR)
- TAMMY QUINN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- TAMMY QUINN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $10,058 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
From the Arctic to the Antarctic and places in between, The Polar Education Foundation provides diverse youth with transformative educational opportunities. We are committed to inspiring the next generation and promoting sustainable practices through education.
What it reported doing in 2025
The organization sponsors educational activities within schools dealing with the polar regions. The organization also develops materials for teachers to use in their curriculum on the polar regions. In addition to the in-school educational activities, the organization provides students, teachers and scientists with the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to explore the arctic and the antarctic by hosting research and educational expeditions to those areas. Each year, there is one trip to the artic and one trip to antarctica. The cost per person is approximately $10,000. The organization believes that the students who are selected to participate in an expedition will learn invaluable lessons and will return to their homes and schools as "polar ambassadors" for the environment. It is hoped that these students will encourage and foster environmental awareness and conservation in their peers. (continued on schedule o)
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 75
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 38
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.1%; rating input score 80
- Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th 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: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 12.8%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 80.1% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $350K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $10K · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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: 7 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.