Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living

What the center reported

532Consumers served320 carried over, 212 new
293Information and referral contacts
$2,234,521Total income
$201,750Part B
$159,378Part C
151Goals achievedof 403 set
26Moved 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)	$201,750
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$159,378
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$0
State government funds	$914,517
Local government funds	$0
Private and other	$958,876
Total income	$2,234,521

Eight years of reports

Ann Arbor 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	472	$1,255,824	$207,792	$121,899	10
2017	427	$1,388,579	$233,124	$123,920	25
2018	412	$1,592,596	$5,165	$139,257	35
2019	333	$1,411,872	$66,601	$142,889	13
2020	257	$1,790,737	$104,705	$142,889	4
2021	581	$2,033,106	$123,688	$142,635	11
2022	461	$1,843,330	$170,646	$144,321	9
2023	532	$2,234,521	$201,750	$159,378	26

Consumers served, by year

2016472
2017427
2018412
2019333
2020257
2021581
2022461
2023532

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	$4,200	34th	69th	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	$14,798	23th	47th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	37.5%	35th	33th	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	39.7%	30th	35th	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	4.89	81th	83th	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	16.31	88th	84th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	93.3%	33th	39th	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	44th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 6 of 9 members.
Staff with disabilities	95.0%	79th	97th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 21.2 of 22.2 FTE.
Equity index	4.5	99th	98th	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	18.8%	54th	61th	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 16.2% of income; Part B varied by 52.7% (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 (293) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Other services	211	211	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	98	98	100.0%
IL skills training	85	84	98.8%
Recreational services	72	31	43.1%
Housing and home modifications	53	53	100.0%
Peer counseling	34	34	100.0%
Assistive technology	30	27	90.0%
Vocational services	29	29	100.0%
Communication services	16	16	100.0%
Transportation	11	11	100.0%
Youth transition	11	11	100.0%
Personal assistance	7	7	100.0%
Counseling and related services	4	4	100.0%
Preventive services	4	4	100.0%
Physical restoration	2	2	100.0%
Family services	1	1	100.0%
All services	668	623	93.3%

Largest unmet demand

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

Recreational services: 31 of 72 requests filled (43.1%).
Assistive technology: 27 of 30 requests filled (90.0%).
IL skills training: 84 of 85 requests filled (98.8%).
Advocacy and legal services: 98 of 98 requests filled (100.0%).
Communication services: 16 of 16 requests filled (100.0%).
Housing and home modifications: 53 of 53 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	17	9	8
Communication	2	0	2
Mobility and transportation	15	5	10
Community-based living	123	37	86
Educational	12	2	10
Vocational	8	6	2
Self-care	12	5	7
Information access and technology	6	1	5
Personal resource management	55	9	46
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	44	26	18
Community and social participation	88	38	50
Other	21	13	8

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	4
5 to 19	13
20 to 24	66
25 to 59	310
60 and older	139
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	120
Mental or emotional	112
Physical	198
Hearing	4
Vision	20
Multiple disabilities	30
Other	48

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Michigan residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 37 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	354	71.5%	73.0%	0.98
Black or African American	98	19.8%	15.6%	1.27
American Indian or Alaska Native	5	1.0%	0.6%	1.59
Asian	6	1.2%	1.4%	0.84
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0	0.0%	0.0%	0.00
Two or more races	22	4.4%	5.2%	0.85
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	10	2.0%	4.1%	0.50

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.