Panhandle Independent Living Center

What the center reported

202Consumers served102 carried over, 100 new
776Information and referral contacts
$1,491,309Total income
$124,404Part B
$362,073Part C
74Goals achievedof 285 set
0Moved 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)	$124,404
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$362,073
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$995,992
State government funds	$0
Local government funds	$0
Private and other	$8,840
Total income	$1,491,309

Eight years of reports

Panhandle Independent Living Center 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	434	$1,364,038	$0	$265,276	0
2017	376	$1,310,102	$773,382	$265,276	2
2018	268	$1,200,173	$12,034	$302,213	0
2019	203	$1,065,250	$44,339	$313,928	0
2020	182	$1,193,170	$116,026	$314,533	0
2021	157	$1,380,290	$126,288	$316,386	0
2022	152	$1,233,670	$112,859	$327,384	0
2023	202	$1,491,309	$124,404	$362,073	0

Consumers served, by year

2016434
2017376
2018268
2019203
2020182
2021157
2022152
2023202

Measures against peers

Percentiles place this center among the 349 centers reporting in 2023 (national) and among centers of similar size (size peers: quartile 3 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	$7,383	17th	10th	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	$20,153	16th	12th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	26.0%	21th	16th	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	27.6%	20th	19th	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	0.00	11th	11th	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	0.00	11th	11th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	95.0%	34th	31th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	71.0%	48th	51th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 5 of 7 members.
Staff with disabilities	82.0%	59th	68th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 9.0 of 11.0 FTE.
Equity index	18.8	60th	52th	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	9.8%	89th	89th	Coefficient of variation of total income across the years reported. Lower ranks higher.
Data-quality flags	0	54th	56th	Failed arithmetic checks in this year's report. Fewer ranks higher. Listed below.

Title VII funds (Parts B and C and Chapter 2) were 32.6% of income; Part B varied by 143.9% (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 (776) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Other services	174	173	99.4%
IL skills training	102	102	100.0%
Assistive technology	89	77	86.5%
Communication services	44	39	88.6%
Vocational services	29	23	79.3%
Housing and home modifications	25	23	92.0%
Recreational services	24	24	100.0%
Peer counseling	20	19	95.0%
Prostheses and orthotics	17	17	100.0%
Youth transition	10	10	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	6	6	100.0%
Transportation	2	2	100.0%
Mobility training	1	1	100.0%
All services	543	516	95.0%

Largest unmet demand

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

Vocational services: 23 of 29 requests filled (79.3%).
Assistive technology: 77 of 89 requests filled (86.5%).
Communication services: 39 of 44 requests filled (88.6%).
Housing and home modifications: 23 of 25 requests filled (92.0%).
Peer counseling: 19 of 20 requests filled (95.0%).
Other services: 173 of 174 requests filled (99.4%).

Goals by category

Goals set, achieved and in progress, report year 2023
Goal category	Set	Achieved	In progress
Self-advocacy and self-empowerment	3	2	1
Communication	50	15	27
Mobility and transportation	81	26	39
Educational	22	4	15
Vocational	31	1	23
Self-care	90	25	48
Community and social participation	1	0	0
Other	7	1	3

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	1
5 to 19	26
20 to 24	13
25 to 59	65
60 and older	97
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	14
Mental or emotional	5
Physical	49
Hearing	16
Vision	0
Multiple disabilities	113
Other	5

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Texas residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 2 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	112	56.0%	45.8%	1.22
Black or African American	13	6.5%	10.8%	0.60
American Indian or Alaska Native	5	2.5%	0.6%	4.24
Asian	2	1.0%	2.3%	0.43
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	2	1.0%	0.1%	10.18
Two or more races	1	0.5%	13.7%	0.04
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	65	32.5%	26.7%	1.22

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.