1. Financial Integrity Rating
School FIRST
Financial Integrity Rating
System of Texas

2. Goals
Achieve Improved Performance In The Management Of School Districts’ Financial Resources
Facilitate Better Uses Of Financial Resources
Demonstrate Increases In Fiscal Performance Were Achieved

3. Superior Achievement - 16th consecutive year
Reports
Superior Achievement - 16th consecutive year
Schools FIRST rating shows that the District is making the most of the taxpayers’ dollars. This rating shows that Northwest ISD’s schools are accountable not only for student learning, but also for achieving these results cost-effectively and efficiently.

4. District Ratings Superior - Score: 100 Superior 90-100
Above Standard
Meets Standard
Substandard Achievement <60

5. District Ratings
1. Was The Complete Annual Financial Report And Data Submitted To The TEA Within 30 Days of the November 27 or January 28 Deadline Depending On The District's Fiscal Year End Date of June 30 or August 31, Respectively)?
YES

6. District Ratings
2A. Was There An Unmodified Opinion in The Annual Financial Report On The Financial Statements As A Whole?
YES

7. District Ratings
2B. Did The External Independent Auditor Report That The Annual Financial Report Was Free Of Any Instance(s) Of Material Weaknesses In Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting And Compliance For Local, State, Or Federal Funds?
YES

8. District Ratings
3. Was The District In Compliance With The Payment Terms Of All Debt Agreements At Fiscal Year End?
YES

9. District Ratings
4. Did The District Make Timely Payments To The Teachers Retirement System (TRS), Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), And Other Government Agencies?
YES

10. District Ratings
5. Was The Total Unrestricted Net Asset Balance In The Governmental Activities Column In The Statement of Net Assets Greater Than Zero?
Yes

11. District Ratings
6. Was The Number Of Days Of Cash On Hand And Current Investments In The General Fund For The District Sufficient To Cover Operating Expenditures (excluding facilities acquisition and construction)?
10 Points

12. District Ratings
7. Was The Measure Of Current Assets To Current Liabilities Ratio For The District Sufficient To Cover Short-Term Debt?
10 Points

13. District Ratings
8. Was The Ratio Of Long-Term Liabilities To Total Assets For The District Sufficient To Support Long- Term Solvency?
10 Points

14. District Ratings
9. Did The District’s General Fund Revenues Equal or Exceed Expenditures (excluding facilities acquisition and construction)?
10 Points

15. District Ratings
10. Was The Debt Service Coverage Ratio Sufficient To Meet The Required Debt Service?
10 Points

16. District Ratings
11. Was The District’s Administrative Cost Ratio Equal To Or Less Than The Threshold Ratio?
10 Points

17. District Ratings
12. Did The District Not Have a 15 Percent Decline In The Students To Staff Ratio Over 3 Years (total enrollment to total staff)?
10 Points

18. District Ratings
13. Did The Comparison Of Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) Data To Like Information In The District’s Annual Financial Report Result In A Total Variance Of Less Than 3 Percent Of All Expenditures By Function?
10 Points

19. District Ratings
14. Did The External Independent Auditor Indicate The Annual Financial Report Was Free Of Any Instance(s) Of Material Noncompliance For Grants, Contracts, And Laws Related To Local, State, Or Federal Funds?
10 Points

20. District Ratings
15. Did The District Not Receive An Adjusted Repayment Schedule For More Than One Fiscal Year For An Over Allocation Of Foundation School Program (FSP) Funds As A Result Of A Financial Hardship?
10 Points