The Center for Independent Living Options, Inc.

What the center reported

309Consumers served261 carried over, 48 new
294Information and referral contacts
$2,121,883Total income
$42,107Part B
$332,261Part C
5Goals achievedof 150 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)	$42,107
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$332,261
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$1,309,506
State government funds	$110,363
Local government funds	$0
Private and other	$327,646
Total income	$2,121,883

Eight years of reports

The Center for Independent Living Options, 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	485	$3,301,623	$0	$259,734	0
2017	496	$2,811,978	$0	$257,979	36
2018	174	$1,989,578	$0	$289,766	15
2019	191	$1,259,238	$297,434	$51,953	0
2020	140	$2,609,590	$51,954	$297,434	0
2021	242	$2,253,883	$0	$296,905	0
2022	264	$2,278,194	$52,566	$300,415	0
2023	309	$2,121,883	$42,107	$332,261	0

Consumers served, by year

2016485
2017496
2018174
2019191
2020140
2021242
2022264
2023309

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	$6,867	18th	11th	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	$424,377	0th	1th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	3.3%	2th	1th	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	16.7%	14th	15th	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	67.0%	37th	40th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 8 of 12 members.
Staff with disabilities	64.0%	25th	28th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 9.0 of 14.0 FTE.
Equity index	37.4	20th	16th	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	24.3%	38th	39th	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 17.6% of income; Part B varied by 169.8% (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 (294) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Housing and home modifications	64	64	100.0%
IL skills training	22	22	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	18	18	100.0%
Other services	10	10	100.0%
Peer counseling	6	6	100.0%
Personal assistance	6	6	100.0%
Youth transition	4	4	100.0%
Assistive technology	3	3	100.0%
Transportation	3	3	100.0%
Vocational services	2	2	100.0%
All services	138	138	100.0%

Largest unmet demand

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

Advocacy and legal services: 18 of 18 requests filled (100.0%).
Housing and home modifications: 64 of 64 requests filled (100.0%).
IL skills training: 22 of 22 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
Self-advocacy and self-empowerment	16	0	16
Communication	1	0	1
Mobility and transportation	8	0	8
Community-based living	53	4	49
Educational	6	0	6
Vocational	11	0	11
Self-care	9	0	9
Information access and technology	2	0	2
Personal resource management	13	0	13
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	1	0	1
Community and social participation	16	0	16
Other	14	1	13

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	0
5 to 19	15
20 to 24	14
25 to 59	153
60 and older	107
Age unavailable	20

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	62
Mental or emotional	55
Physical	145
Hearing	3
Vision	27
Multiple disabilities	1
Other	16

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Ohio residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 36 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	130	47.6%	77.0%	0.62
Black or African American	134	49.1%	13.0%	3.79
American Indian or Alaska Native	3	1.1%	0.2%	5.32
Asian	2	0.7%	1.1%	0.70
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	1	0.4%	0.0%	10.84
Two or more races	2	0.7%	5.1%	0.14
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	1	0.4%	3.7%	0.10

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.