The Ability Center of Greater Toledo

What the center reported

2,785Consumers served790 carried over, 1,995 new
3,348Information and referral contacts
$10,277,862Total income
$231,423Part B
$258,425Part C
2,219Goals achievedof 2,608 set
16Moved 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)	$231,423
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$258,425
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$33,588
State government funds	$3,762,170
Local government funds	$29,537
Private and other	$5,962,719
Total income	$10,277,862

Eight years of reports

The Ability Center of Greater Toledo 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	707	$4,313,969	$45,386	$202,015	114
2017	686	$4,736,797	$52,376	$200,650	111
2018	763	$4,574,480	$52,377	$225,373	119
2019	960	$6,038,989	$71,525	$231,337	15
2020	2,111	$5,705,997	$72,125	$231,337	15
2021	2,461	$4,141,027	$68,663	$230,926	16
2022	2,910	$5,783,487	$68,663	$233,656	22
2023	2,785	$10,277,862	$231,423	$258,425	16

Consumers served, by year

2016707
2017686
2018763
2019960
20202,111
20212,461
20222,910
20232,785

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	$3,690	42th	76th	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	$4,632	57th	83th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	85.1%	90th	94th	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	95.5%	93th	96th	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	48th	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	6.19	76th	69th	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	56.0%	9th	13th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 9 of 16 members.
Staff with disabilities	60.0%	19th	35th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 32.0 of 53.0 FTE.
Equity index	11.6	82th	76th	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	32.6%	24th	30th	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 4.8% of income; Part B varied by 68.8% (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 (3,348) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Assistive technology	1,946	1,946	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	182	182	100.0%
IL skills training	112	112	100.0%
Recreational services	98	98	100.0%
Vocational services	60	60	100.0%
Children's services	41	41	100.0%
Other services	24	24	100.0%
Family services	22	22	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	18	18	100.0%
Youth transition	10	10	100.0%
Peer counseling	9	9	100.0%
Transportation	4	4	100.0%
Communication services	3	3	100.0%
Mental restoration	1	1	100.0%
Personal assistance	1	1	100.0%
Physical restoration	1	0	0.0%
All services	2,532	2,531	100.0%

Largest unmet demand

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

Advocacy and legal services: 18 of 18 requests filled (100.0%).
Assistive technology: 1,946 of 1,946 requests filled (100.0%).
Children's services: 41 of 41 requests filled (100.0%).
Family services: 22 of 22 requests filled (100.0%).
Housing and home modifications: 182 of 182 requests filled (100.0%).
IL skills training: 112 of 112 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	40	31	9
Communication	1	0	1
Mobility and transportation	9	5	4
Community-based living	119	84	35
Educational	2	1	1
Vocational	37	19	18
Self-care	1,792	1,714	78
Information access and technology	1	0	1
Personal resource management	3	0	3
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	20	16	4
Community and social participation	58	17	41
Other	526	332	194

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	24
5 to 19	177
20 to 24	93
25 to 59	618
60 and older	1,873
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	333
Mental or emotional	25
Physical	2,227
Hearing	6
Vision	23
Multiple disabilities	87
Other	84

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Ohio residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 107 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	1,847	69.0%	77.0%	0.90
Black or African American	654	24.4%	13.0%	1.88
American Indian or Alaska Native	8	0.3%	0.2%	1.45
Asian	25	0.9%	1.1%	0.89
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0	0.0%	0.0%	0.00
Two or more races	46	1.7%	5.1%	0.34
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	98	3.7%	3.7%	0.99

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.