Management Institute for Quality-of-life Studies
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 311802321
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Dublin, VA, USA
- Phone
- 5402390157
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- General Science
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $11,440
- Expenses
- $14,138
- Assets
- $92,498
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
People named in this filing
- OSMAN BALCI (DIRECTOR)
- PAMELA A JACKSON (SECRETARY/TR)
- MOHSEN JOSHANLOO (DIRECTOR)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The general objective of the management institute for quality-of-life studies (miqols) is to conduct quality-of-life management-related research for business, non-profit, and government organizations to help those organizations: develop educational programs for managers and policy makers on topics related to quality-of-life issues; develop evaluation (research) programs based on quality-of-life performance measures and methods that can assist in strategic decision- making in turbulent environments--technology, social/cultural, economic, and/or political environments; and develop management programs to help organizations better serve its many stakeholders and enhance their well being.
What it reported doing in 2025
The halloran philanthropies is undertaking a study focused on the history of well-being. The foundation is interested in documenting (1) the family of concepts that comprise wellbeing (i.e., happiness, life satisfaction, overall quality of life), (2) what data have been collected historically (using cross-sectional or longitudinal surveys) to measure well-being as defined and how, and (3) a notion of well-being embedded in a multi-leveled cultural context (i.e., individuals nested in families, nested in neighborhoods, nested in cities, etc.). The end goal is to develop a more holistic, dynamic and current definition (and model) capturing the essence of "human well-being" that serves the basis of future work in this area. The overall objective is to perform a comprehensive, scholarly and practical documentation of the history of well-being that provides the basis for a better understanding of the current well-being indicator systems and supporting a reference point for future work and projections. The final deliverable should appeal to a wide audience of college-educated adults including quality-of-life/well-being researchers, university educators teaching courses involving the concept of well-being and students enrolling in these courses, public policy officials whose interest is to develop metrics and policies to enhance the well-being of target populations or geographic regions, other foundations that have an interest in well-being related to specific populations or geographic regions, the lay public, and the media. This expansive target set is likely to require a deliverable that is versatile and that can take various forms, modes or versions.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 81% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 59
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 72.6%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 53.6%; rating input score 54
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -23.6%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.54; rating input score 57; 57th 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 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -16.6% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 72.6% of revenue deployed · 53.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.