ARCIL, Inc

What the center reported

151Consumers served84 carried over, 67 new
1,310Information and referral contacts
$282,750Total income
$0Part B
$282,750Part C
200Goals achievedof 351 set
16Moved out of institutionsrelocation goals achieved
8Years reportedof 8 since 2016

Funding sources

Income by source, report year 2023Dollars received, as reported. The report does not show expenditure.
Source	Amount
Title VII Part B (through the state)	$0
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$282,750
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$0
State government funds	$0
Local government funds	$0
Private and other	$0
Total income	$282,750

Eight years of reports

ARCIL, Inc by report yearA blank row means no report was found for that year.
Report year	Consumers served	Total income	Part B	Part C	Moved out of institutions
2016	160	$205,020	$0	$205,020	18
2017	182	$207,159	$0	$207,159	8
2018	242	$235,998	$0	$235,998	13
2019	243	$245,152	$0	$245,152	30
2020	279	$245,625	$0	$245,625	14
2021	200	$1,686,062	$74,660	$247,072	7
2022	153	$255,661	$0	$255,661	10
2023	151	$282,750	$0	$282,750	16

Consumers served, by year

2016160
2017182
2018242
2019243
2020279
2021200
2022153
2023151

Measures against peers

Percentiles place this center among the 349 centers reporting in 2023 (national) and among centers of similar size (size peers: quartile 1 of 4 by total income). 100 is the most favourable position. How each measure is built and what it cannot tell you.

Relative measures, report year 2023
Measure	Value	National percentile	Size-peer percentile	What it is
Income per consumer	$1,873	74th	56th	Total income divided by consumers served. Lower ranks higher. It is intensity, not efficiency: a center doing nursing-home transitions costs more per person than one doing mostly information.
Income per goal achieved	$1,414	86th	72th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	57.0%	57th	56th	Goals achieved as a share of goals set. A rate near 100% can mean goals are recorded only when already met.
Records closed with all goals met	66.7%	50th	48th	Share of closed consumer records closed as "completed all goals set". Recorded at exit, so a stronger signal than goal counts.
Transitions per 100 consumers	10.60	92th	85th	Relocation-from-institution goals achieved per 100 consumers. Zero is common at small centers; the percentile shows how common.
Transitions per $100,000 of Part C	5.66	74th	80th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	80.6%	15th	13th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	100.0%	93th	89th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 7 of 7 members.
Staff with disabilities	100.0%	90th	76th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 4.1 of 4.1 FTE.
Equity index	22.8	49th	55th	Index of dissimilarity between the race and ethnicity of consumers and of the state's disability population, 0 to 100. Lower ranks higher. Compared with the state, not the center's actual service area.
Income volatility	113.9%	2th	4th	Coefficient of variation of total income across the years reported. Lower ranks higher.
Data-quality flags	0	54th	53th	Failed arithmetic checks in this year's report. Fewer ranks higher. Listed below.

Title VII funds (Parts B and C and Chapter 2) were 100.0% of income; Part B varied by 264.6% (coefficient of variation) across the years reported.

Services requested and received

Consumers requesting and receiving each service, report year 2023Information and referral is counted as contacts (1,310) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Assistive technology	54	16	29.6%
Advocacy and legal services	42	37	88.1%
IL skills training	42	41	97.6%
Communication services	36	36	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	32	20	62.5%
Youth transition	32	32	100.0%
Vocational services	32	31	96.9%
Peer counseling	20	20	100.0%
Preventive services	7	7	100.0%
Transportation	7	5	71.4%
Recreational services	3	3	100.0%
Children's services	2	2	100.0%
Mobility training	1	0	0.0%
All services	310	250	80.6%

Largest unmet demand

Services with ten or more requests, ordered by the share that went unfilled.

Assistive technology: 16 of 54 requests filled (29.6%).
Housing and home modifications: 20 of 32 requests filled (62.5%).
Advocacy and legal services: 37 of 42 requests filled (88.1%).
Vocational services: 31 of 32 requests filled (96.9%).
IL skills training: 41 of 42 requests filled (97.6%).
Communication services: 36 of 36 requests filled (100.0%).

Goals by category

Goals set, achieved and in progress, report year 2023
Goal category	Set	Achieved	In progress
Self-advocacy and self-empowerment	65	37	24
Communication	37	21	12
Mobility and transportation	38	11	26
Community-based living	8	2	4
Educational	39	23	12
Vocational	44	30	11
Self-care	60	38	18
Personal resource management	33	21	9
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	26	16	9
Community and social participation	1	1	0

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	1
5 to 19	12
20 to 24	28
25 to 59	42
60 and older	68
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	47
Mental or emotional	15
Physical	61
Hearing	12
Vision	6
Multiple disabilities	5
Other	5

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Texas residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 3 consumers of unknown race. State shares are from ACS B18101A to B18101I. A ratio above 1 means the group is a larger share of consumers than of the state's disability population.
Group	Consumers	Share of consumers	Share of state disability population	Ratio
White	88	59.5%	45.8%	1.30
Black or African American	26	17.6%	10.8%	1.62
American Indian or Alaska Native	0	0.0%	0.6%	0.00
Asian	7	4.7%	2.3%	2.04
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0	0.0%	0.1%	0.00
Two or more races	0	0.0%	13.7%	0.00
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	27	18.2%	26.7%	0.68

Hispanic or Latino is an ethnicity reported alongside race in the PPR, so shares can sum to more than 100%. The comparison is with the whole state, which overstates any mismatch for a center that serves one part of it.

Data quality

Eight arithmetic checks run over every center's report. They test whether the tables agree with each other, nothing more. How often each check fails nationally.

None of the arithmetic checks failed for this report. That means the tables add up, not that the counts are verified.

What this cannot tell you

The report is unaudited self-report. Nobody verifies the consumer counts.
It reports income, not expenditure. A cost measure here is a stand-in until checked against the center's audited financial statements.
Part B and Part C outcomes are not separable. The center reports total activity.
There is no county, city or island detail in the public file.
Percentiles compare centers whose definitions of "consumer" and "goal" may differ. The data-quality row is the only signal of that in the public data.
Relative position is not impact. Nothing here supports a causal claim about what the center changed in anyone's life.

Source: Administration for Community Living, Centers for Independent Living Program Performance Report public datafiles, report years 2016 to 2023. Generated 2026-10-25.