Edison Innovation Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223442892
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Newark, NJ, USA
Phone
9736480500
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$991,470
Expenses
$734,242
Assets
$2,783,137
Liabilities
$34,716

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WADE KNOWLES (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN P KEEGAN (Chairman,Pres): $220,458 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS UNGERLAND (Exec Vice Pres): $82,500 total reported compensation
  • GEORGE Q KEEGAN (Treasurer/Secr): $24,860 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To preserve and promote the historical facilities and papers of thomas edison where and in which he invented the products that shaped the modern world; to benefit all students providing the necessary skills to pursue careers in science and technology.

What it reported doing in 2025

Eif's primary goal is to raise $90 million for the restoration and upkeep of edison's legacy throughout america. On october 9th, 2009, the legendary edison labs in west orange, nj opened after more than five years of major renovations. These buildings were in critical need of repair, and the collections including, notebooks, early prototypes, and thousands of early recordings were in danger or being lost due to deterioration. The initial focus of this campaign was to support the newly renamed thomas edison national historical park("tenhp') and associated educational and research efforts in general. However, during this initial phase, eif is also working on individual public sector projects as well as forming alliances with other organizations and foundations in order to achieve educational initiatives. Some recent public sector work is described in section below. (continued on sch o)

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 75% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most filed governance safeguards are in place. 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: 15
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 16.2%; rating input score 16
  • Program expense ratio: 12.1%; rating input score 12
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 40%; rating input score 40; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25.9%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.79; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 46.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 16.2% of revenue deployed · 12.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $89K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $220K · 5 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 16/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 40/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.