Disability Network Mid-Michigan

What the center reported

1,233Consumers served712 carried over, 521 new
108Information and referral contacts
$4,161,046Total income
$25,635Part B
$159,378Part C
846Goals achievedof 1,254 set
156Moved 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)	$25,635
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$159,378
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$651,835
State government funds	$1,692,226
Local government funds	$0
Private and other	$1,631,973
Total income	$4,161,046

Eight years of reports

Disability Network Mid-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	793	$3,546,514	$25,036	$124,811	41
2017	895	$3,752,962	$25,036	$123,920	35
2018	880	$3,503,326	$21,553	$139,258	20
2019	1,017	$2,888,420	$0	$142,889	8
2020	826	$3,357,051	$0	$142,889	33
2021	846	$3,489,380	$83,180	$142,635	32
2022	1,037	$3,622,490	$25,109	$144,321	50
2023	1,233	$4,161,046	$25,635	$159,378	156

Consumers served, by year

2016793
2017895
2018880
20191,017
2020826
2021846
20221,037
20231,233

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	$3,375	46th	79th	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	$4,918	53th	79th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	67.5%	71th	77th	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	57.3%	42th	49th	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	12.65	92th	97th	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	97.88	99th	98th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	99.5%	51th	53th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	78.0%	63th	74th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 7 of 9 members.
Staff with disabilities	89.0%	72th	90th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 31.0 of 35.0 FTE.
Equity index	11.9	81th	72th	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	9.5%	91th	95th	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 4.4% of income; Part B varied by 93.8% (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 (108) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Communication services	388	388	100.0%
Vocational services	306	306	100.0%
Other services	302	302	100.0%
Preventive services	212	212	100.0%
IL skills training	180	180	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	132	130	98.5%
Recreational services	125	124	99.2%
Youth transition	124	124	100.0%
Peer counseling	81	81	100.0%
Personal assistance	53	53	100.0%
Prostheses and orthotics	36	36	100.0%
Transportation	13	7	53.8%
Counseling and related services	1	1	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	1	1	100.0%
All services	1,954	1,945	99.5%

Largest unmet demand

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

Transportation: 7 of 13 requests filled (53.8%).
Advocacy and legal services: 130 of 132 requests filled (98.5%).
Recreational services: 124 of 125 requests filled (99.2%).
Communication services: 388 of 388 requests filled (100.0%).
IL skills training: 180 of 180 requests filled (100.0%).
Peer counseling: 81 of 81 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	30	24	6
Communication	11	6	5
Community-based living	257	170	87
Educational	8	3	5
Vocational	262	212	50
Self-care	12	2	10
Information access and technology	1	0	1
Personal resource management	81	52	29
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	240	156	84
Community and social participation	223	141	82
Other	129	80	49

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	8
5 to 19	210
20 to 24	172
25 to 59	527
60 and older	315
Age unavailable	1

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	642
Mental or emotional	88
Physical	89
Hearing	14
Vision	3
Multiple disabilities	392
Other	5

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Michigan residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 159 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	907	84.5%	73.0%	1.16
Black or African American	117	10.9%	15.6%	0.70
American Indian or Alaska Native	11	1.0%	0.6%	1.61
Asian	3	0.3%	1.4%	0.19
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	1	0.1%	0.0%	3.06
Two or more races	10	0.9%	5.2%	0.18
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	25	2.3%	4.1%	0.57

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.