Disability Advocates of Kent County

What the center reported

1,653Consumers served1,272 carried over, 381 new
816Information and referral contacts
$2,646,715Total income
$24,316Part B
$159,377Part C
550Goals achievedof 827 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)	$24,316
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$159,377
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$494,100
State government funds	$971,551
Local government funds	$0
Private and other	$997,371
Total income	$2,646,715

Eight years of reports

Disability Advocates of Kent County 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	873	$2,519,110	$25,036	$124,810	9
2017	789	$2,534,376	$25,036	$123,920	10
2018	810	$2,129,091	$0	$139,258	25
2019	653	$2,631,746	$0	$142,888	10
2020	580	$4,244,712	$0	$142,888	5
2021	1,066	$3,280,898	$0	$142,634	11
2022	1,476	$3,222,571	$23,454	$144,320	3
2023	1,653	$2,646,715	$24,316	$159,377	0

Consumers served, by year

2016873
2017789
2018810
2019653
2020580
20211,066
20221,476
20231,653

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	$1,601	79th	96th	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	$4,812	54th	81th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	66.5%	70th	73th	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	93.6%	90th	95th	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	9th	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	9th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	96.3%	38th	42th	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%. 8 of 12 members.
Staff with disabilities	69.0%	35th	60th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 18.0 of 26.0 FTE.
Equity index	15.4	71th	65th	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	21.3%	47th	52th	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 6.9% of income; Part B varied by 100.1% (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 (816) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Assistive technology	426	426	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	413	413	100.0%
Vocational services	98	91	92.9%
Youth transition	88	77	87.5%
Advocacy and legal services	47	39	83.0%
IL skills training	39	22	56.4%
Other services	19	19	100.0%
Transportation	14	14	100.0%
Peer counseling	13	13	100.0%
Family services	11	11	100.0%
Personal assistance	3	3	100.0%
All services	1,171	1,128	96.3%

Largest unmet demand

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

IL skills training: 22 of 39 requests filled (56.4%).
Advocacy and legal services: 39 of 47 requests filled (83.0%).
Youth transition: 77 of 88 requests filled (87.5%).
Vocational services: 91 of 98 requests filled (92.9%).
Assistive technology: 426 of 426 requests filled (100.0%).
Family services: 11 of 11 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	14	10	4
Mobility and transportation	3	1	2
Community-based living	362	203	159
Educational	21	18	3
Vocational	67	25	42
Information access and technology	322	269	53
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	10	0	10
Community and social participation	1	1	0
Other	27	23	4

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	5
5 to 19	83
20 to 24	200
25 to 59	434
60 and older	930
Age unavailable	1

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	336
Mental or emotional	87
Physical	875
Hearing	17
Vision	63
Multiple disabilities	178
Other	97

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Michigan residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 217 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	894	62.3%	73.0%	0.85
Black or African American	396	27.6%	15.6%	1.76
American Indian or Alaska Native	3	0.2%	0.6%	0.33
Asian	13	0.9%	1.4%	0.63
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	4	0.3%	0.0%	9.16
Two or more races	22	1.5%	5.2%	0.29
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	104	7.2%	4.1%	1.77

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.