Access Center for Independent Living

What the center reported

143Consumers served108 carried over, 35 new
119Information and referral contacts
$846,404Total income
$170,400Part B
$303,439Part C
32Goals achievedof 329 set
13Moved 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)	$170,400
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$303,439
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$59,049
State government funds	$0
Local government funds	$110,133
Private and other	$203,383
Total income	$846,404

Eight years of reports

Access Center for Independent Living 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	92	$451,777	$0	$237,203	3
2017	106	$336,244	$0	$235,600	2
2018	98	$323,588	$0	$264,630	0
2019	72	$468,510	$0	$271,633	1
2020	87	$415,285	$0	$271,633	0
2021	78	$827,275	$0	$271,150	2
2022	137	$588,141	$0	$274,355	0
2023	143	$846,404	$170,400	$303,439	13

Consumers served, by year

201692
2017106
201898
201972
202087
202178
2022137
2023143

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	$5,919	21th	10th	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	$26,450	12th	9th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	9.7%	7th	9th	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	87.5%	79th	77th	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	9.09	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	4.28	68th	72th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	100.0%	76th	76th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	64.0%	29th	32th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 7 of 11 members.
Staff with disabilities	78.0%	50th	43th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 9.0 of 11.5 FTE.
Equity index	29.7	33th	33th	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	36.1%	18th	11th	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 56.0% of income; Part B varied by 264.6% (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 (119) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Communication services	11	11	100.0%
IL skills training	10	10	100.0%
Youth transition	10	10	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	7	7	100.0%
Peer counseling	7	7	100.0%
Other services	7	7	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	3	3	100.0%
Physical restoration	2	2	100.0%
Transportation	2	2	100.0%
Personal assistance	1	1	100.0%
All services	60	60	100.0%

Largest unmet demand

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

Communication services: 11 of 11 requests filled (100.0%).
IL skills training: 10 of 10 requests filled (100.0%).
Youth transition: 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	3	1	2
Communication	2	0	2
Mobility and transportation	48	0	48
Community-based living	14	2	12
Educational	4	0	4
Vocational	3	0	3
Self-care	9	3	6
Information access and technology	214	11	203
Personal resource management	1	0	1
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	15	13	2
Community and social participation	5	0	5
Other	11	2	9

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	1
5 to 19	3
20 to 24	7
25 to 59	53
60 and older	77
Age unavailable	2

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	21
Mental or emotional	6
Physical	88
Hearing	1
Vision	3
Multiple disabilities	19
Other	5

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Ohio residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 0 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	75	52.4%	77.0%	0.68
Black or African American	61	42.7%	13.0%	3.29
American Indian or Alaska Native	0	0.0%	0.2%	0.00
Asian	1	0.7%	1.1%	0.66
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0	0.0%	0.0%	0.00
Two or more races	5	3.5%	5.1%	0.69
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	1	0.7%	3.7%	0.19

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.