Disability Network Southwest Michigan

What the center reported

174Consumers served72 carried over, 102 new
504Information and referral contacts
$721,338Total income
$4,250Part B
$177,989Part C
53Goals achievedof 169 set
1Moved 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)	$4,250
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$177,989
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$74,089
State government funds	$456,995
Local government funds	$0
Private and other	$8,015
Total income	$721,338

Eight years of reports

Disability Network Southwest Michigan 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	394	$607,905	$10,273	$139,385	7
2017	292	$565,358	$10,273	$138,391	14
2018	404	$660,346	$0	$155,520	11
2019	280	$585,202	$9,694	$159,574	6
2020	227	$833,965	$0	$159,574	1
2021	200	$875,526	$25,933	$159,290	0
2022	104	$610,188	$3,363	$161,173	0
2023	174	$721,338	$4,250	$177,989	1

Consumers served, by year

2016394
2017292
2018404
2019280
2020227
2021200
2022104
2023174

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	$4,146	35th	25th	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	$13,610	25th	21th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	31.4%	27th	28th	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	89.4%	83th	81th	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	0.57	42th	36th	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	0.56	35th	36th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	101.7%	99th	99th	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	39th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 4 of 6 members.
Staff with disabilities	86.0%	68th	63th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 6.1 of 7.1 FTE.
Equity index	10.4	86th	92th	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	16.1%	65th	62th	Coefficient of variation of total income across the years reported. Lower ranks higher.
Data-quality flags	1	5th	3th	Failed arithmetic checks in this year's report. Fewer ranks higher. Listed below.

Title VII funds (Parts B and C and Chapter 2) were 25.3% of income; Part B varied by 99.0% (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 (504) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Other services	77	80	103.9%
Peer counseling	41	41	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	17	17	100.0%
IL skills training	15	15	100.0%
Mobility training	11	11	100.0%
Vocational services	10	10	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	3	3	100.0%
Youth transition	3	3	100.0%
Transportation	2	2	100.0%
All services	179	182	101.7%

Largest unmet demand

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

Housing and home modifications: 17 of 17 requests filled (100.0%).
IL skills training: 15 of 15 requests filled (100.0%).
Mobility training: 11 of 11 requests filled (100.0%).
Peer counseling: 41 of 41 requests filled (100.0%).
Vocational services: 10 of 10 requests filled (100.0%).
Other services: 80 of 77 requests filled (103.9%).

Goals by category

Goals set, achieved and in progress, report year 2023
Goal category	Set	Achieved	In progress
Self-advocacy and self-empowerment	2	1	1
Mobility and transportation	2	0	2
Community-based living	32	21	11
Educational	3	1	2
Vocational	18	8	10
Self-care	3	0	3
Information access and technology	1	0	1
Personal resource management	1	0	1
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	2	1	1
Community and social participation	6	1	5
Other	99	20	79

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	0
5 to 19	5
20 to 24	17
25 to 59	80
60 and older	72
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	42
Mental or emotional	23
Physical	68
Hearing	1
Vision	3
Multiple disabilities	20
Other	17

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Michigan residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 6 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	140	83.3%	73.0%	1.14
Black or African American	23	13.7%	15.6%	0.88
American Indian or Alaska Native	1	0.6%	0.6%	0.94
Asian	0	0.0%	1.4%	0.00
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0	0.0%	0.0%	0.00
Two or more races	1	0.6%	5.2%	0.11
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	3	1.8%	4.1%	0.44

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.

More received a service than requested it. For at least one service type, the count receiving exceeds the count requesting.

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.