American Institute of Stress

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371694813
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Fort Worth, TX, USA
Phone
6822396832
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Mental Health Treatment F31 Psychiatric, Mental Health Hospital

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$388,934
Expenses
$387,952
Assets
$78,803
Liabilities
$16,991

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL KIRSCH PHD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFF JERNIGAN PARTIAL YEAR (DIRECTOR): $14,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The american institute of stress is a clearinghouse of all stress related information. Ais provides a diverse and inclusive environment that fosters intellectual discovery and creates and transmits innovative knowledge.

What it reported doing in 2025

To help others learn to manage stress is the cornerstone of a happier and more productive life. We offer evidence-based resources featuring online assessments, educational courses, podcasts, magazines and corporate employee assistance programs to help people manage stress effectively. Many of these offerings are free and we also include them in various paid memberships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% 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 program spending has grown recently. 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: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 45
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.2%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 52.3%; rating input score 52
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 21st 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: 0.3%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.2% of revenue deployed · 52.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $203K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $14K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.