Apprenticeshop

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223132234
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Rockland, ME, USA
Phone
2075941800
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Cultural Exchange

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,177,616
Expenses
$682,866
Assets
$1,248,373
Liabilities
$226,109

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Isabella Feracci (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Isabella Feracci (Executive Director): $91,668 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 Apprenticeshop is a community that cultivates thinkers, makers, and doers through traditional boat building and seamanship to navigate an ever-changing world.

What it reported doing in 2025

Jr. Apprenticeship: For local youth in middle and high school, we partner with school districts in the region to offer a Jr. Apprenticeship. Students come to the Apprenticeshop during and after school to learn both traditional boatbuildlng and seamanship. The Jr. Apprenticeship is centered around the construction of two vessels, an 8' lapstrake sail & row pram and a 40' traditional Portuguese sailing sardine carrier. Jr. Apprentices learn hard skills, such as shop safety, hand and power tool use, woodworking, knot tying, sailmaking, rowing, and sailing, alongside the soft skills of working and problem solving within a team. As with all of our programs, the Jr. Apprenticeship requires collaboration and pushes young people to see what they are capable of, while building resilience, self-confidence, and resourcefulness in the process.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.9%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 53.2%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 42%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.83; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.4%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 31.9% of revenue deployed · 53.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $363K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.