REACH of Denton Resource Center on Independent Living

What the center reported

203Consumers served98 carried over, 105 new
81,706Information and referral contacts
$501,643Total income
$0Part B
$287,915Part C
200Goals achievedof 266 set
1Moved 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)	$287,915
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	$213,728
Total income	$501,643

Eight years of reports

REACH of Denton Resource Center on Independent Living 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	94	$208,765	$0	$208,765	0
2017	88	$210,944	$0	$210,944	0
2018	100	$240,485	$0	$240,310	0
2019	127	$490,926	$0	$249,631	0
2020	100	$491,407	$0	$250,112	0
2021	94	$253,457	$0	$251,586	0
2022	122	$262,831	$0	$260,331	0
2023	203	$501,643	$0	$287,915	1

Consumers served, by year

201694
201788
2018100
2019127
2020100
202194
2022122
2023203

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	$2,471	57th	34th	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	$2,508	74th	62th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	75.2%	83th	80th	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	73.3%	58th	52th	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	0.49	38th	34th	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	0.35	28th	32th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	96.7%	39th	38th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	75.0%	57th	43th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 6 of 8 members.
Staff with disabilities	96.0%	80th	50th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 5.0 of 5.2 FTE.
Equity index	30.0	33th	42th	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	38.1%	15th	16th	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 57.4% of income.

Services requested and received

Consumers requesting and receiving each service, report year 2023Information and referral is counted as contacts (81,706) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Assistive technology	74	67	90.5%
IL skills training	37	37	100.0%
Recreational services	33	32	97.0%
Rehabilitation technology	31	31	100.0%
Peer counseling	29	29	100.0%
Preventive services	13	13	100.0%
Counseling and related services	10	10	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	6	6	100.0%
Family services	4	4	100.0%
Youth transition	2	2	100.0%
Other services	2	2	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	1	1	100.0%
All services	242	234	96.7%

Largest unmet demand

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

Assistive technology: 67 of 74 requests filled (90.5%).
Recreational services: 32 of 33 requests filled (97.0%).
Counseling and related services: 10 of 10 requests filled (100.0%).
IL skills training: 37 of 37 requests filled (100.0%).
Peer counseling: 29 of 29 requests filled (100.0%).
Preventive services: 13 of 13 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	18	13	4
Mobility and transportation	138	116	20
Community-based living	5	1	4
Educational	17	13	1
Vocational	1	1	0
Self-care	14	12	2
Information access and technology	9	5	4
Personal resource management	25	15	10
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	1	1	0
Community and social participation	25	10	12
Other	13	13	0

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	0
5 to 19	3
20 to 24	11
25 to 59	69
60 and older	120
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	14
Mental or emotional	21
Physical	106
Hearing	0
Vision	46
Multiple disabilities	11
Other	5

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Texas residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 1 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	145	71.8%	45.8%	1.57
Black or African American	30	14.9%	10.8%	1.37
American Indian or Alaska Native	1	0.5%	0.6%	0.84
Asian	3	1.5%	2.3%	0.64
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)	23	11.4%	26.7%	0.43

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.