Center for People With Disabilities

What the center reported

680Consumers served415 carried over, 265 new
477Information and referral contacts
$3,449,926Total income
$5,170Part B
$278,137Part C
455Goals achievedof 804 set
4Moved 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)	$5,170
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$278,137
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$69,381
Other federal funds	$65,292
State government funds	$733,845
Local government funds	$638,934
Private and other	$1,659,167
Total income	$3,449,926

Eight years of reports

Center for People With Disabilities 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	708	$2,671,849	$13,873	$203,569	3
2017	535	$2,658,884	$15,426	$205,654	3
2018	469	$2,977,014	$14,024	$234,529	5
2019	488	$3,124,506	$12,765	$242,705	2
2020	510	$3,924,195	$2,086	$243,588	5
2021	494	$2,635,920	$16,480	$245,229	2
2022	609	$3,435,471	$37,661	$252,732	2
2023	680	$3,449,926	$5,170	$278,137	4

Consumers served, by year

2016708
2017535
2018469
2019488
2020510
2021494
2022609
2023680

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	$5,073	26th	59th	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	$7,582	40th	65th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	56.6%	57th	54th	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	30.6%	23th	24th	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	0.59	43th	49th	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	1.44	52th	44th	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	71.0%	48th	59th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 5 of 7 members.
Staff with disabilities	83.0%	62th	83th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 26.8 of 32.4 FTE.
Equity index	11.0	86th	79th	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	14.0%	73th	75th	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 10.2% of income; Part B varied by 67.5% (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 (477) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
IL skills training	356	356	100.0%
Peer counseling	172	172	100.0%
Assistive technology	110	110	100.0%
Youth transition	80	80	100.0%
Vocational services	75	75	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	48	48	100.0%
All services	841	841	100.0%

Largest unmet demand

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

Advocacy and legal services: 48 of 48 requests filled (100.0%).
Assistive technology: 110 of 110 requests filled (100.0%).
IL skills training: 356 of 356 requests filled (100.0%).
Peer counseling: 172 of 172 requests filled (100.0%).
Youth transition: 80 of 80 requests filled (100.0%).
Vocational services: 75 of 75 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	39	18	21
Communication	16	10	6
Mobility and transportation	48	24	24
Community-based living	139	89	50
Educational	16	9	7
Vocational	108	65	43
Self-care	21	13	8
Information access and technology	145	87	58
Personal resource management	99	31	68
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	11	4	7
Community and social participation	162	105	57

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	0
5 to 19	19
20 to 24	43
25 to 59	226
60 and older	389
Age unavailable	3

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	121
Mental or emotional	38
Physical	154
Hearing	4
Vision	93
Multiple disabilities	270
Other	0

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Colorado residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 49 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	478	75.8%	65.4%	1.16
Black or African American	23	3.6%	3.8%	0.96
American Indian or Alaska Native	11	1.7%	1.3%	1.39
Asian	10	1.6%	1.9%	0.83
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	2	0.3%	0.2%	1.88
Two or more races	0	0.0%	10.1%	0.00
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	107	17.0%	17.4%	0.98

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.