Mid-Ohio Board for an Independent Living Enviornment

What the center reported

761Consumers served577 carried over, 184 new
25Information and referral contacts
$281,040Total income
$0Part B
$266,997Part C
14Goals achievedof 164 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)	$0
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$266,997
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$0
State government funds	$13,493
Local government funds	$0
Private and other	$550
Total income	$281,040

Eight years of reports

Mid-Ohio Board for an Independent Living Enviornment 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	83	$473,341	$0	$208,716	12
2017	202	$222,901	$0	$207,306	3
2018	252	$265,082	$0	$232,849	0
2019	703	$338,859	$0	$239,011	0
2020	871	$304,289	$0	$239,011	1
2021	951	$265,229	$0	$238,586	1
2022	966	$333,961	$0	$241,406	0
2023	761	$281,040	$0	$266,997	0

Consumers served, by year

201683
2017202
2018252
2019703
2020871
2021951
2022966
2023761

Measures against peers

Percentiles place this center among the 349 centers reporting in 2023 (national) and among centers of similar size (size peers: quartile 1 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	$369	100th	99th	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	$20,074	17th	8th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	8.5%	6th	4th	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	93.3%	89th	87th	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	14th	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	14th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	100.0%	76th	77th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	60.0%	20th	13th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 3 of 5 members.
Staff with disabilities	100.0%	90th	76th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 3.0 of 3.0 FTE.
Equity index	59.0	6th	12th	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	22.9%	40th	41th	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 95.0% of income.

Services requested and received

Consumers requesting and receiving each service, report year 2023Information and referral is counted as contacts (25) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Assistive technology	37	37	100.0%
Preventive services	12	12	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	11	11	100.0%
IL skills training	9	9	100.0%
Communication services	6	6	100.0%
Peer counseling	5	5	100.0%
Transportation	5	5	100.0%
Youth transition	5	5	100.0%
Counseling and related services	4	4	100.0%
Rehabilitation technology	4	4	100.0%
Other services	3	3	100.0%
Family services	2	2	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	2	2	100.0%
Mobility training	2	2	100.0%
Recreational services	2	2	100.0%
Mental restoration	1	1	100.0%
All services	110	110	100.0%

Largest unmet demand

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

Advocacy and legal services: 11 of 11 requests filled (100.0%).
Assistive technology: 37 of 37 requests filled (100.0%).
Preventive services: 12 of 12 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	5	2	3
Mobility and transportation	2	2	0
Community-based living	61	2	59
Educational	2	0	2
Vocational	5	1	4
Self-care	21	2	19
Information access and technology	12	2	10
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	7	0	7
Community and social participation	10	2	8
Other	39	1	38

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	9
5 to 19	9
20 to 24	11
25 to 59	475
60 and older	248
Age unavailable	9

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	54
Mental or emotional	106
Physical	369
Hearing	55
Vision	65
Multiple disabilities	14
Other	98

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Ohio residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 12 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	184	24.6%	77.0%	0.32
Black or African American	534	71.3%	13.0%	5.50
American Indian or Alaska Native	4	0.5%	0.2%	2.58
Asian	4	0.5%	1.1%	0.51
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	3	0.4%	0.0%	11.85
Two or more races	9	1.2%	5.1%	0.24
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	11	1.5%	3.7%	0.40

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.