Options for Independent Living Inc.

What the center reported

486Consumers served164 carried over, 322 new
2,200Information and referral contacts
$2,172,432Total income
$25,726Part B
$35,300Part C
275Goals achievedof 394 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)	$25,726
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$35,300
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$252,615
State government funds	$337,556
Local government funds	$0
Private and other	$1,521,235
Total income	$2,172,432

Eight years of reports

Options for Independent Living 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	374	$1,768,473	$27,883	$27,378	0
2017	334	$1,706,705	$28,232	$27,213	0
2018	261	$1,778,862	$28,444	$30,603	0
2019	311	$1,732,789	$27,446	$31,385	0
2020	293	$1,812,895	$48,547	$31,385	2
2021	314	$1,796,428	$47,152	$31,329	2
2022	349	$1,960,363	$25,726	$31,755	6
2023	486	$2,172,432	$25,726	$35,300	0

Consumers served, by year

2016374
2017334
2018261
2019311
2020293
2021314
2022349
2023486

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	$4,470	30th	21th	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	$7,900	38th	32th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	69.8%	76th	71th	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	94.4%	91th	88th	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	100.0%	76th	74th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	55.0%	6th	3th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 6 of 11 members.
Staff with disabilities	57.0%	15th	16th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 12.0 of 21.0 FTE.
Equity index	11.2	85th	82th	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	7.8%	95th	94th	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 2.8% of income; Part B varied by 27.7% (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 (2,200) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Assistive technology	184	184	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	117	117	100.0%
Vocational services	82	82	100.0%
IL skills training	41	41	100.0%
Other services	38	38	100.0%
Transportation	17	17	100.0%
Youth transition	10	10	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	8	8	100.0%
Peer counseling	7	7	100.0%
All services	504	504	100.0%

Largest unmet demand

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

Assistive technology: 184 of 184 requests filled (100.0%).
Housing and home modifications: 117 of 117 requests filled (100.0%).
IL skills training: 41 of 41 requests filled (100.0%).
Transportation: 17 of 17 requests filled (100.0%).
Youth transition: 10 of 10 requests filled (100.0%).
Vocational services: 82 of 82 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	22	14	8
Communication	2	0	2
Mobility and transportation	29	10	19
Community-based living	1	1	0
Educational	2	1	1
Vocational	45	39	6
Self-care	23	4	19
Information access and technology	148	134	14
Personal resource management	118	70	48
Community and social participation	4	2	2

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	20
5 to 19	92
20 to 24	40
25 to 59	135
60 and older	199
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	120
Mental or emotional	26
Physical	214
Hearing	24
Vision	11
Multiple disabilities	8
Other	83

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Wisconsin residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 123 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	306	84.3%	80.0%	1.05
Black or African American	9	2.5%	6.9%	0.36
American Indian or Alaska Native	29	8.0%	1.0%	7.82
Asian	5	1.4%	1.5%	0.93
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0	0.0%	0.0%	0.00
Two or more races	3	0.8%	5.1%	0.16
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	11	3.0%	5.4%	0.56

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.