ARCIL, Inc

What the center reported

141Consumers served48 carried over, 93 new
1,450Information and referral contacts
$289,513Total income
$0Part B
$289,513Part C
263Goals achievedof 314 set
20Moved 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)	$289,513
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	$289,513

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	218	$209,923	$0	$209,923	10
2017	223	$212,114	$0	$212,114	0
2018	214	$241,643	$0	$241,643	7
2019	138	$251,016	$0	$251,016	17
2020	149	$251,500	$0	$251,500	19
2021	130	$252,982	$0	$252,982	8
2022	124	$261,776	$0	$261,776	11
2023	141	$289,513	$0	$289,513	20

Consumers served, by year

2016218
2017223
2018214
2019138
2020149
2021130
2022124
2023141

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	$2,053	68th	44th	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	$1,101	90th	80th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	83.8%	89th	87th	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	84.0%	72th	73th	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	14.18	94th	90th	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	6.91	78th	82th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	80.4%	14th	12th	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	82.0%	59th	35th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 4.6 of 5.6 FTE.
Equity index	20.7	54th	62th	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	9.9%	89th	87th	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.

Services requested and received

Consumers requesting and receiving each service, report year 2023Information and referral is counted as contacts (1,450) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Advocacy and legal services	62	41	66.1%
IL skills training	59	59	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	44	22	50.0%
Assistive technology	36	14	38.9%
Vocational services	29	28	96.6%
Personal assistance	28	23	82.1%
Communication services	26	26	100.0%
Youth transition	18	17	94.4%
Preventive services	17	17	100.0%
Recreational services	16	16	100.0%
Other services	15	15	100.0%
Peer counseling	13	13	100.0%
Transportation	5	5	100.0%
All services	368	296	80.4%

Largest unmet demand

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

Assistive technology: 14 of 36 requests filled (38.9%).
Housing and home modifications: 22 of 44 requests filled (50.0%).
Advocacy and legal services: 41 of 62 requests filled (66.1%).
Personal assistance: 23 of 28 requests filled (82.1%).
Youth transition: 17 of 18 requests filled (94.4%).
Vocational services: 28 of 29 requests filled (96.6%).

Goals by category

Goals set, achieved and in progress, report year 2023
Goal category	Set	Achieved	In progress
Self-advocacy and self-empowerment	58	48	10
Communication	30	26	4
Mobility and transportation	5	4	1
Community-based living	12	12	0
Educational	36	33	3
Vocational	18	16	2
Self-care	35	25	10
Information access and technology	30	26	4
Personal resource management	44	39	5
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	31	20	9
Community and social participation	15	14	1

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	0
5 to 19	11
20 to 24	29
25 to 59	50
60 and older	51
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	18
Mental or emotional	34
Physical	37
Hearing	14
Vision	3
Multiple disabilities	13
Other	22

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Texas residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 5 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	54	39.7%	45.8%	0.87
Black or African American	15	11.0%	10.8%	1.02
American Indian or Alaska Native	1	0.7%	0.6%	1.25
Asian	2	1.5%	2.3%	0.63
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)	64	47.1%	26.7%	1.76

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.