Avery County Long Term Recovery Group Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
392227274
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Elk Park, NC, USA
Phone
8283875269
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$965,600
Expenses
$441,236
Assets
$526,417
Liabilities
$2,053

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sally Berg (Former Executive Director)
  • Tammy Woodie (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sally Berg (Former Executive Director): $40,000 total reported compensation
  • Tammy Woodie (Executive Director): $8,490 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

ACLTRG serves as the central coordinating hub for long-term recovery in Avery County, aligning nonprofit organizations, faith-based partners, volunteers, public agencies, and funders to reduce duplication, maximize resources, and ensure that recovery efforts respond directly to community-identified needs. Through coordinated case management, housing repair and reconstruction, accessibility improvements, and stabilization support, we help residents move from prolonged displacement toward safety, dignity, and stability.

What it reported doing in 2025

During 2025, ACLTRG served 166 households, delivering critical recovery assistance including: * Completion of 21 home repair projects * Completion of 22 culvert and driveway stabilization projects * Completion of 12 debris removal projects * Completion of 7 well and septic system repairs * Provision of additional services such as mold remediation, demolition, and safety-related repairs At year-end, 58 active cases remained in progress, including roof replacements, grading and drainage improvements, culvert installations, and accessibility modifications.

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 44% for direct work, and 56% for grants.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33.2%; rating input score 33
  • Program expense ratio: 72.6%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $28.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th 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: 54.3%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.19; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33.2% of revenue deployed · 72.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $320K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $40K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 42 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.