American Institute for Boys and Men

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931872834
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
3012192141
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,359,980
Expenses
$2,131,068
Assets
$7,297,776
Liabilities
$156,459

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RICHARD REEVES (PRESIDENT)
  • ALANNA WILLIAMS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RICHARD REEVES (PRESIDENT): $367,106 total reported compensation
  • ALANNA WILLIAMS (VICE PRESIDENT): $180,740 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The American Institute for Boys and Men (AIBM) is the first national organization committed to objective research and policy development to enhance the wellbeing of boys and men.

What it reported doing in 2024

Nonpartisan, data-driven research on issues affecting the wellbeing of boys and men across the united states aibm prioritized research in education, mental health, and the unique challenges faced by black boys and men. Aibm has commissioned and published multiple scholarly papers, research briefs, and commentaries, contributing to evidence-based policy discussions. The organization has engaged with policymakers to provide expert insights on pressing issues such as fatherhood, male mental health, and educational disparities. Aibms research has been featured in pbs newshour, npr, the atlantic, vice, cbs sunday morning, and the New York times, amplifying the reach of its findings and reinforcing its mission to develop policy solutions that support the success of boys and men.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 21.3%; rating input score 21
  • Program expense ratio: 71.3%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $69.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 71%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.42; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 74.1% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 86.6% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 115.9% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 21.3% of revenue deployed · 71.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $367K · 7 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.