Red Dot Foundation Global

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821206435
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Baltimore, MD, USA
Phone
5712631161
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$188,597
Expenses
$214,192
Assets
$115,967
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELSA MARIE DSILVA (PRESIDENT CEO)
  • ANDREA ADAMS (DIRECTOR CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELSA MARIE DSILVA (PRESIDENT CEO): $60,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ending violence against women and girls using crowdsourced data, community engagement, and institutional accountability.

What it reported doing in 2025

Safecity - red dot foundation global (rdfg) works at the intersection of gender, technology, communications, data, and urban planning through its flagship program, safecity. Safecity is a platform that crowdsources personal stories of sexual harassment and abuse in public spaces. This data is aggregated as hot spots on a map indicating trends at a local level. The data empowers individuals, local communities, and local administration to create safer public and private spaces by identifying factors that lead to violence. Safecity has collected over 50,000 reports from all over the world with 25 participating cities, countries, and organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 57.2%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Pass
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -13.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65% of revenue deployed · 57.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $123K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.