Independent Living Resources of Greater Birmingham, Inc.

What the center reported

382Consumers served171 carried over, 211 new
1,706Information and referral contacts
$2,895,520Total income
$16,811Part B
$623,955Part C
64Goals achievedof 216 set
33Moved 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)	$16,811
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$623,955
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$261,127
Other federal funds	$1,466,563
State government funds	$133,716
Local government funds	$0
Private and other	$393,348
Total income	$2,895,520

Eight years of reports

Independent Living Resources of Greater Birmingham, 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	334	$1,003,405	$0	$476,844	4
2017	374	$1,065,989	$0	$473,772	6
2018	178	$1,061,770	$0	$532,578	1
2019	114	$1,113,011	$0	$545,878	0
2020	192	$1,642,081	$81,152	$545,878	2
2021	332	$1,624,849	$40,452	$544,908	0
2022	360	$2,041,539	$116,042	$554,065	1
2023	382	$2,895,520	$16,811	$623,955	33

Consumers served, by year

2016334
2017374
2018178
2019114
2020192
2021332
2022360
2023382

Measures against peers

Percentiles place this center among the 349 centers reporting in 2023 (national) and among centers of similar size (size peers: quartile 4 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	$7,580	16th	45th	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	$45,242	7th	16th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	29.6%	26th	27th	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	53.3%	40th	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	8.64	90th	92th	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	5.29	72th	61th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	100.0%	76th	78th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	67.0%	37th	44th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 6 of 9 members.
Staff with disabilities	71.0%	38th	64th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 15.0 of 21.0 FTE.
Equity index	35.2	24th	21th	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	39.5%	13th	17th	Coefficient of variation of total income across the years reported. Lower ranks higher.
Data-quality flags	0	54th	54th	Failed arithmetic checks in this year's report. Fewer ranks higher. Listed below.

Title VII funds (Parts B and C and Chapter 2) were 31.1% of income; Part B varied by 130.9% (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 (1,706) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Housing and home modifications	249	249	100.0%
Youth transition	156	156	100.0%
IL skills training	15	15	100.0%
Other services	10	10	100.0%
Assistive technology	7	7	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	5	5	100.0%
Peer counseling	5	5	100.0%
Vocational services	3	3	100.0%
Communication services	1	1	100.0%
Counseling and related services	1	1	100.0%
Personal assistance	1	1	100.0%
All services	453	453	100.0%

Largest unmet demand

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

Housing and home modifications: 249 of 249 requests filled (100.0%).
IL skills training: 15 of 15 requests filled (100.0%).
Youth transition: 156 of 156 requests filled (100.0%).
Other services: 10 of 10 requests filled (100.0%).

Goals by category

Goals set, achieved and in progress, report year 2023
Goal category	Set	Achieved	In progress
Mobility and transportation	29	10	17
Community-based living	64	13	47
Educational	2	2	0
Vocational	2	1	1
Information access and technology	3	1	2
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	37	33	4
Other	79	4	73

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	1
5 to 19	137
20 to 24	20
25 to 59	26
60 and older	196
Age unavailable	2

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	163
Mental or emotional	45
Physical	129
Hearing	5
Vision	3
Multiple disabilities	4
Other	33

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Alabama residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 14 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	131	35.6%	66.0%	0.54
Black or African American	219	59.5%	26.1%	2.28
American Indian or Alaska Native	0	0.0%	0.5%	0.00
Asian	0	0.0%	0.6%	0.00
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0	0.0%	0.1%	0.00
Two or more races	1	0.3%	3.9%	0.07
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	17	4.6%	2.8%	1.64

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.