International Society for Quality of Life Research

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541985637
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Phone
4149189797
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,240,793
Expenses
$1,228,012
Assets
$1,173,102
Liabilities
$110,498

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSEPHINE M NORQUIST (PRESIDENT)
  • JOANNE GREENHALGH PHD (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • SANDRA NOLTE (PRESIDENT ELECT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH UNNI (DIRECTOR): $8,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To advance the scientific study of health-related quality of life and other patient-centered outcomes to identify effective interventions, enhance the quality of health care and promote the health of populations.

What it reported doing in 2024

Annual conference - the isoqol annual conference brings together researchers, industry representatives from pharmaceutical, biotechnology and mobile health device fields, clinicians, patient research partners and regulatory officials from around the world. Students, new investigators, established professionals and late-career professionals all have a place at isoqol. During this conference attendees have the opportunity to attend and/or present in general scientific sessions. The numerous educational, collaborative and networking opportunities ensure value for attendees in any career stage.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 71.1%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd 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: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 40.9%; rating input score 41; 28th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.4% of revenue deployed · 71.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $873K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $8K · 13 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $630K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 28 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.