Center for Digital Democracy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522311577
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024947100
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Censorship, Freedom of Speech and Press

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$299,283
Expenses
$454,793
Assets
$168,276
Liabilities
$11,941

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jeffrey Chester (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jeffrey Chester (President): $81,984 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 Center for Digital Democracy's (CDD) mission is to ensure that digital technologies serve and strengthen democratic values, institutions and processes. CDD strives to safeguard privacy and civil and human rights, as well as to advance equity, fairness and community. CDD works to protect and expand digital rights and data justice through research-led initiatives designed to influence policymakers, corporate leaders, the news media, civil society and the general public. The organization focuses on developing and advocating for rules and policies that: (1) foster privacy, justice and non-discriminatory treatment in the digital marketplace; (2) safeguard young people against unfair, manipulative and other harmful practices; (3) promote responsible commercial data and digital marketing operations in political campaigns and elections; and (4) ensure that digital marketing practices contribute to fair and equitable public health outcomes.

What it reported doing in 2025

Digital Safeguards for Children and Youth: Children are growing up tethered to social media, video entertainment, gaming and mobile platforms operated by Facebook, Google, and other powerful corporations. There is a growing body of evidence documenting how the technology industry has significantly increased risks to children's privacy; bombarded them with misinformation, hate and racist speech; exposed them to cyberbullying and sexual predation and contributed to behaviors that threaten their health and well-being. It appears that just as they do for adults, digital platforms data practices can also produce disparate outcomes for children of color and low income youth exacerbating existing disparities in racial, economic and political equity. The growing power of global big tech platforms creates an urgent need for comprehensive, coordinated, international efforts to promote greater corporate accountability and stronger government policies on behalf of children, and to ensure that safeguards are built into the foundation of emerging platforms and services. The Center is working with allies to conduct a number of efforts aimed at informing the public, the news media and policymakers, about the growing risks to young people from the unregulated digital technology industry in order to elevate the importance of this issue in the policy disclosure, place it higher on the Washington political agenda, and ultimately bring about policy change. The Center's project is focused on the following objectives: Influencing major technology companies to strengthen their internal policies and practices for protecting the privacy of children and adolescents, analyzing emerging commercial technologies and services to assess their implications for youth exposure, and engaging with civil society organizations and other stakeholders in the U.S. and elsewhere to foster consensus and collaboration on how to protect privacy and the well-being of young people in the digital environment promoting public health policies in the digital environment - The Center continues its work addressing the impact of digital media on health outcomes, including the role that marketing plays in contributing to the obesity epidemic. The Center has produced numerous reports documenting how unhealthy foods are marketed to young people through digital media and continue to operate a comprehensive research and public education initiative on that issue. We also analyze how drug companies market their products on new media platforms, assessing their impact on influencing consumer and medical professional health behaviors ensuring competition in the retail and grocery sector-We track and analyze developments related to the transformation of retail as a result of new technologies and also omnichannel marketing strategies. Our in-depth research initiative identifies the latest trends and practices, making the information available to journalists, policymakers and NGOs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 75% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93.9%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -52%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $427K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $82K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 42 of 42 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.