Disability Community Resource Center

What the center reported

1,151Consumers served440 carried over, 711 new
119Information and referral contacts
$3,045,399Total income
$0Part B
$140,791Part C
165Goals achievedof 989 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)	$0
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$140,791
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$625,001
State government funds	$1,108,362
Local government funds	$298,974
Private and other	$872,271
Total income	$3,045,399

Eight years of reports

Disability Community Resource Center 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	302	$1,564,933	$0	$110,582	0
2017	254	$1,593,562	$0	$110,620	0
2018	428	$1,648,823	$0	$124,574	0
2019	486	$1,944,741	$0	$128,316	0
2020	514	$2,092,379	$0	$128,316	0
2021	2,499	$2,158,531	$0	$128,088	1
2022	900	$2,275,968	$0	$129,602	0
2023	1,151	$3,045,399	$0	$140,791	1

Consumers served, by year

2016302
2017254
2018428
2019486
2020514
20212,499
2022900
20231,151

Measures against peers

Percentiles place this center among the 349 centers reporting in 2023 (national) and among centers of similar size (size peers: quartile 4 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	$2,646	55th	84th	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	$18,457	18th	38th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	16.7%	12th	10th	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	32.7%	25th	28th	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	0.09	23th	19th	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	0.71	41th	32th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	100.0%	76th	78th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	71.0%	48th	59th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 10 of 14 members.
Staff with disabilities	56.0%	12th	19th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 18.0 of 32.0 FTE.
Equity index	23.9	46th	40th	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	22.4%	42th	46th	Coefficient of variation of total income across the years reported. Lower ranks higher.
Data-quality flags	0	54th	54th	Failed arithmetic checks in this year's report. Fewer ranks higher. Listed below.

Title VII funds (Parts B and C and Chapter 2) were 4.6% of income.

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
Vocational services	486	486	100.0%
Peer counseling	219	219	100.0%
Assistive technology	120	120	100.0%
Youth transition	107	107	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	90	90	100.0%
Other services	62	62	100.0%
Personal assistance	56	56	100.0%
Communication services	35	35	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	12	12	100.0%
IL skills training	6	6	100.0%
Transportation	6	6	100.0%
All services	1,199	1,199	100.0%

Largest unmet demand

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

Advocacy and legal services: 90 of 90 requests filled (100.0%).
Assistive technology: 120 of 120 requests filled (100.0%).
Communication services: 35 of 35 requests filled (100.0%).
Housing and home modifications: 12 of 12 requests filled (100.0%).
Peer counseling: 219 of 219 requests filled (100.0%).
Personal assistance: 56 of 56 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	0	3
Mobility and transportation	1	0	1
Community-based living	106	17	89
Educational	1	0	1
Vocational	396	51	345
Information access and technology	41	40	1
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	1	1	0
Community and social participation	13	3	10
Other	427	53	374

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	14
5 to 19	20
20 to 24	73
25 to 59	630
60 and older	395
Age unavailable	19

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	7
Mental or emotional	293
Physical	271
Hearing	15
Vision	41
Multiple disabilities	346
Other	178

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with California residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 156 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	329	33.1%	42.3%	0.78
Black or African American	287	28.8%	6.4%	4.54
American Indian or Alaska Native	13	1.3%	1.2%	1.09
Asian	41	4.1%	10.2%	0.40
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	10	1.0%	0.4%	2.83
Two or more races	33	3.3%	11.9%	0.28
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	282	28.3%	27.6%	1.03

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.