Mcquillan Institute For Science Technology An
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 992901160
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Boston, MA, USA
- Phone
- 6172333792
- Rating
- 42
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Interdisciplinary Research
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $201,000
- Expenses
- $200,251
- Assets
- $10,080,713
- Liabilities
- $115
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
People named in this filing
- John McQuillan (Founder)
- Sheila Jasanoff (Founder)
- Deramise Lorfils (Founder)
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
Spread awareness of STS scholarship Plan to organize similar academic conferences, and support STS scholarship directly through offering grants to emerging scholars.
What it reported doing in 2025
McQuillan Institute for Science, Technology, and the Human Future is a charitable organization founded on the central idea of science, technology, and society as both an academic discipline and an aid to action. The Institute is committed to advancing STS research, teaching, and scholarship and to translating STS developments into action in government, business, education, and media for the benefit of the human future. The Institute is committed to furthering the dual objectives of STS scholarly excellence and public impact.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and total assets are large relative to annual expenses, but may not be spendable cash. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 27
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Accountability: 12
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 30.3%; rating input score 30
- Program expense ratio: 30.5%; rating input score 30
- Fundraising efficiency: $0.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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: Limited
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.4%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 50.34; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 195.5% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 30.3% of revenue deployed · 30.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 17 of 20 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 30/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesProfFundraising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.