Digital Democracy Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814785355
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Orlando, FL, USA
Phone
4079063168
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Voter Education, Registration

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$163,123
Expenses
$62,555
Assets
$114,956
Liabilities
$6,316

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ramon Perez (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Ramon Perez (Executive Director)
  • Vinay Orekondy (Board Chairman)
  • J Mark Barfield (Board Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

Voter education and civic engagement

What it reported doing in 2025

DDP develops tools that connect citizen input to legislative decision-making, allowing the public to track how elected officials respond to constituent priorities. These tools surface areas of agreement, disagreement, and inaction, strengthening public oversight and informed civic participation. Program outputs are publicly available and designed for reuse by media, researchers, and civic organizations. Persons Benefited: Approximately 50,000 users accessing accountability data and transparency reports, with indirect benefit to the general public through increased legislative visibility.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.3%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 61.7%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.84; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -38.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 105.3% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $63K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.