Mountain Home School District 9Budget & Spending
Mountain Home, Baxter County, Arkansas NCES 0500043
- Total revenue · FY2024
- $51.9M $51,942,000
- Students enrolled
- 3,839 17.9% child poverty in the district
- Revenue per pupil
- $13,530
- Local share per pupil
- $2,485 71st percentile in AR
Transparency grade C, provisional
Under reviewProvisional grade
Every district starts at a provisional C until its records have been reviewed. This is a starting point, not a finding.
If you work for this district, you can shorten the wait by sending us links to the records you already publish.
NCES F-33 · FY2024
Where the money goes
Operating and capital spending from the federal expenditure survey, rolled up by function.
Aggregate categories only: no individual payees or contracts are shown.
- Instruction
- $28.4M 58.3% of spending
- Administration
- $3.4M 7.1% of spending
- Per pupil
- $12,713 All functions
- Instruction 58.3%
- Student Transportation 10.7%
- Student Support Services 6.7%
- General Administration 5.2%
- Operations & Maintenance 4.6%
- Food Services 4.3%
- Business & Central Services 3.3%
- Other Support Services 2.6%
- School Administration 1.9%
- Instructional Staff Support 1.6%
- Capital Outlay 0.8%
- Other Programs 0.1%
View the numbers as a table
| Function | Amount | Per pupil | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Instruction | $28,449,000 | $7,411 | 58.3% |
| Student Transportation | $5,224,000 | $1,361 | 10.7% |
| Student Support Services | $3,260,000 | $849 | 6.7% |
| General Administration | $2,518,000 | $656 | 5.2% |
| Operations & Maintenance | $2,265,000 | $590 | 4.6% |
| Food Services | $2,089,000 | $544 | 4.3% |
| Business & Central Services | $1,612,000 | $420 | 3.3% |
| Other Support Services | $1,250,000 | $326 | 2.6% |
| School Administration | $928,000 | $242 | 1.9% |
| Instructional Staff Support | $775,000 | $202 | 1.6% |
| Capital Outlay | $404,000 | $105 | 0.8% |
| Other Programs | $33,000 | $9 | 0.1% |
| Total | $48,807,000 | $12,713 | 100% |
NCES F-33 · FY2005–FY2024
How this has changed
Summary Four points on FY2009 to FY2018
- Operating balance and scale In FY2018 the district reported $39.0M in revenue against $34.9M in current operating spending. It took in $4.1M more than it spent on operations, a margin of 10.5% of revenue. This compares revenue with operating cost only; it is not a fund balance and not an audited result.
- Inflation and real growth Consumer prices rose +17.0% between FY2009 and FY2018. Revenue rose +15.5% and operating spending +10.9% in nominal terms. Revenue trailed inflation, losing +1.3% in purchasing power. Operating spending trailed inflation, losing +5.2% in purchasing power.
- Enrollment and per-pupil cost Enrollment fell by 121 students, -3.0%. Operating spending per student went from $7,827 to $8,951, +14.4% nominal and -2.3% after inflation.
- Structural takeaway Revenue grew faster than operating spending, by 4.6 percentage points over the period, and real cost per student fell over the same window. These figures describe cost, not performance: the F-33 does not say what a district was funded to do, and this site scores what a district publishes rather than how it spends.
Generated from the figures in the table below, not written by hand and not written by a model. Change the years and it recalculates.
| Measure | FY2009 | FY2018 | Change | Nominal % | Real % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total revenue | $33,793,000 | $39,022,000 | +$5,229,000 | +15.5% | -1.3% |
| Total expenditure | $37,142,000 | $37,345,000 | +$203,000 | +0.5% | -14.1% |
| Revenue per pupil | $8,404 | $10,006 | +$1,602 | +19.1% | +1.7% |
| Students enrolled | 4,021 | 3,900 | -121 | -3.0% | — |
Percent change from each measure's FY2009 level. Dollar figures are nominal as filed; the real column removes inflation using CPI-U, U.S. city average, all items, annual average (BLS). The dashed line is that same inflation curve, so a dollar line above it gained purchasing power and one below it lost. It does not apply to enrollment. Hover any point for the underlying number.
Each line is the share of students in that grade who sat their state test and scored at or above the mark Arkansas calls proficient. A reading of 48% means 48 of every 100 tested reached that bar, and the other 52 did not. It is not an average score and not a share of everyone enrolled. Federal EDFacts collection, grades 4 and 8. Proficiency is defined by Arkansas's own test and its own cut score, so these figures are not comparable with a district in another state. The dashed vertical lines mark years when Arkansas changed its test and reset the passing mark (FY2014, -52 points across 236 districts; FY2015, 30 points across 234 districts). Scores either side of one of those lines measure different things, and the step is a change in the test rather than in what students learned. There is no usable FY2019 in the federal collection and nothing published after FY2020, so the line stops there.
100-point rubric
What Mountain Home School District 9 needs for an A
-
Public check register
14 ptsEvery disbursement published with payee category, date, amount, and fund, updated at least quarterly.
A check register records where money actually went, rather than where it was budgeted to go.
-
Annual financial audit
6 ptsA current Annual Comprehensive Financial Report with the independent auditor opinion attached.
A financial audit confirms the statements are accurately presented. Most states require one, so it is a floor rather than a distinction.
-
Performance or efficiency audit
5 ptsAn independent review of whether spending achieved its stated purpose, published within the last three years.
A financial audit asks whether the numbers are right. A performance audit asks whether the money did what it was meant to do, which is the question a taxpayer is usually asking.
-
Line-item adopted budget
11 ptsThe adopted budget broken out by function and object code, not a summary presentation.
Function and object detail is what allows classroom and central office spending to be compared.
-
Purchasing card transactions
9 ptsPurchasing and credit card transaction detail with merchant category, date, and amount.
Card purchases sit outside the standard purchase-order process, so separate disclosure is what makes them reviewable.
-
Payment history by category
9 ptsCumulative payments grouped by spending category, covering at least one full fiscal year.
Category totals show concentration and recurring commitments that individual payments do not.
-
Machine-readable data
9 ptsFinancial data offered as CSV, XLSX, JSON, or an open API rather than scanned images.
A scanned PDF is technically public and practically difficult to analyse. Open formats make review possible.
-
Compensation schedule
7 ptsCurrent salary schedules and aggregate administrator compensation bands, including stipends.
Payroll is the largest line in most district budgets, so schedule-level disclosure covers the bulk of spending.
-
Bond and capital disclosure
7 ptsBond program spending reported against the specific projects voters approved, with remaining balances.
Bond funds are borrowed against future taxes and authorised for a named project list, so reporting against that list closes the loop.
-
Board minutes and agendas
7 ptsMinutes and agenda packets posted together with the financial exhibits that were voted on.
The vote and its attachment are what connect a decision to the money it moved.
-
Contracts posted
6 ptsExecuted contracts and amendments above the district bid threshold, posted in full.
A payment shows the amount. The contract shows what was promised in return.
-
Direct download, no request
6 ptsCore financial records download directly, with no records request, login, or fee.
Publishing a record and releasing it on request are different levels of disclosure.
-
Published records process
4 ptsA public records page naming the responsible officer, the statutory timeline, and any fees.
A documented process tells a requester what to expect before they file.
No items have been checked yet. These fill in as each record is located and verified.