Boo2bullying Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455473347
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Palm Springs, CA, USA
Phone
4422908154
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Delinquency Prevention

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$36,470
Expenses
$36,016
Assets
$2,064
Liabilities
$199,840

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DIMITRI HALKIDIS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DIMITRI HALKIDIS (PRESIDENT)
  • DEBBIE SCHWARTZ (TREASURER & SECRETARY)
  • LAURA PURDY (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

To eradicate bullying, intolerance and discrimination by providing outreach, mentoring, inspiration, support and hope for bullied youth and their families. Our educational programs and empowering dialogue are delivered primarily via school assemblies and through social media platforms, locally and nationwide.

What it reported doing in 2025

Boo2bullying continued its virtual and online programs in 2025 and expanded our social media messaging and inspirational content. We also resumed community outreach activities and produced a new, successful annual event and festival titled "kick bullying to the curb".the even took pace inpalm springs where boo2bullying also curated an inspirational panel of speakers, was joined by numerous community partners and put together two celebrity kickball teams to entertain the community while garnering operating funds.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.3%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 53%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 19th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.2%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 96.82; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -11.8% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -18.6% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.3% of revenue deployed · 53% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $19K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.