True Self Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
660881019
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2017
Location
San Juan, PR, USA
Phone
7874603333
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Lesbian, Gay Rights

Reported finances

Revenue
$590,534
Expenses
$580,348
Assets
$608,921
Liabilities
$30,315

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY A GABINO (PRESIDENT)
  • MARIA ARCHEVALD CANSOBRE (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MARY A GABINO (PRESIDENT)
  • MARIA ARCHEVALD CANSOBRE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CHE VAZQUEZ COLON (SECRETARY)

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

Advancing transgender community equality rights. Also the Organization educated the LGBT community and their allies in their rights needs and responsibilities by organizing seminars and making educational resources and material available to them. In addition the Organization provides access to legal and health services to transgender people by creating a network of sensible and educated professionals willing to work with the transgender community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Scholarships of 3 thousand each were awarded for gender affirmation operations. A camp was held for young people from 14 to 21 years of age from the LGBTQIA+ community. Financial aid was given to people in the community for small projects that benefited the LGBTQIA+ community. Free binders were handed out to trans men. Name changes were made. The 5k marathon was performed.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 37
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.9%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 40.6%; rating input score 41
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.49 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 1.7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.05; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 32.9% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.9% of revenue deployed · 40.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $236K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 44 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.