ATTIC INC.

What the center reported

455Consumers served347 carried over, 108 new
511Information and referral contacts
$1,118,439Total income
$27,177Part B
$298,314Part C
519Goals achievedof 604 set
6Moved 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)	$27,177
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$298,314
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$114,429
State government funds	$143,354
Local government funds	$0
Private and other	$535,165
Total income	$1,118,439

Eight years of reports

ATTIC 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	493	$968,710	$38,175	$229,654	1
2017	555	$1,031,630	$33,292	$228,512	6
2018	565	$1,043,519	$33,293	$257,166	4
2019	596	$1,122,237	$24,339	$264,308	1
2020	542	$1,042,177	$24,339	$264,308	4
2021	464	$972,245	$26,122	$263,838	2
2022	391	$901,333	$27,145	$269,235	1
2023	455	$1,118,439	$27,177	$298,314	6

Consumers served, by year

2016493
2017555
2018565
2019596
2020542
2021464
2022391
2023455

Measures against peers

Percentiles place this center among the 349 centers reporting in 2023 (national) and among centers of similar size (size peers: quartile 2 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	$2,458	58th	52th	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	$2,155	78th	75th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	85.9%	91th	91th	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	66.7%	50th	51th	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	1.32	62th	54th	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	2.01	56th	59th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	98.8%	46th	47th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	100.0%	93th	95th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 1 of 1 members.
Staff with disabilities	0.0%	1th	3th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 0.0 of 6.1 FTE.
Equity index	19.3	58th	61th	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	6.9%	97th	95th	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 29.1% of income; Part B varied by 16.2% (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 (511) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Advocacy and legal services	304	301	99.0%
Personal assistance	133	133	100.0%
Assistive technology	129	129	100.0%
IL skills training	95	95	100.0%
Recreational services	82	82	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	48	41	85.4%
Peer counseling	48	48	100.0%
Vocational services	2	2	100.0%
Communication services	1	1	100.0%
Physical restoration	1	1	100.0%
Youth transition	1	1	100.0%
All services	844	834	98.8%

Largest unmet demand

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

Housing and home modifications: 41 of 48 requests filled (85.4%).
Advocacy and legal services: 301 of 304 requests filled (99.0%).
Assistive technology: 129 of 129 requests filled (100.0%).
IL skills training: 95 of 95 requests filled (100.0%).
Peer counseling: 48 of 48 requests filled (100.0%).
Personal assistance: 133 of 133 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	130	127	3
Mobility and transportation	99	88	11
Community-based living	6	3	3
Educational	32	31	1
Self-care	75	62	13
Information access and technology	170	126	44
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	6	6	6
Community and social participation	86	76	10

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	0
5 to 19	28
20 to 24	21
25 to 59	154
60 and older	252
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	87
Mental or emotional	53
Physical	297
Hearing	4
Vision	10
Multiple disabilities	2
Other	2

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Indiana 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	440	96.9%	78.5%	1.24
Black or African American	6	1.3%	9.2%	0.14
American Indian or Alaska Native	5	1.1%	0.3%	3.95
Asian	0	0.0%	1.1%	0.00
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0	0.0%	0.0%	0.00
Two or more races	1	0.2%	5.5%	0.04
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	2	0.4%	5.5%	0.08

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.