Community Access Center

What the center reported

1,462Consumers served221 carried over, 1,241 new
5,653Information and referral contacts
$1,282,157Total income
$19,234Part B
$100,724Part C
1,948Goals achievedof 2,000 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)	$19,234
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$100,724
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$614,020
State government funds	$293,989
Local government funds	$232,522
Private and other	$21,668
Total income	$1,282,157

Eight years of reports

Community Access 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	304	$687,116	$2,003	$77,274	3
2017	339	$689,564	$21,903	$79,139	7
2018	306	$619,610	$10,058	$89,122	5
2019	501	$669,042	$20,680	$91,799	3
2020	364	$681,674	$20,256	$91,799	9
2021	829	$911,537	$52,779	$91,636	9
2022	900	$845,264	$44,634	$92,719	4
2023	1,462	$1,282,157	$19,234	$100,724	0

Consumers served, by year

2016304
2017339
2018306
2019501
2020364
2021829
2022900
20231,462

Measures against peers

Percentiles place this center among the 349 centers reporting in 2023 (national) and among centers of similar size (size peers: quartile 3 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	$877	93th	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	$658	95th	94th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	97.4%	97th	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	99.4%	98th	94th	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	11th	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	11th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	95.0%	34th	31th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	88.0%	81th	78th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 7 of 8 members.
Staff with disabilities	91.0%	75th	90th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 21.0 of 23.0 FTE.
Equity index	11.4	83th	80th	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	25.7%	35th	36th	Coefficient of variation of total income across the years reported. Lower ranks higher.
Data-quality flags	0	54th	56th	Failed arithmetic checks in this year's report. Fewer ranks higher. Listed below.

Title VII funds (Parts B and C and Chapter 2) were 9.4% of income; Part B varied by 65.8% (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 (5,653) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Peer counseling	1,139	1,070	93.9%
IL skills training	714	677	94.8%
Assistive technology	622	622	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	286	281	98.3%
Youth transition	106	106	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	87	51	58.6%
Personal assistance	4	4	100.0%
All services	2,958	2,811	95.0%

Largest unmet demand

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

Advocacy and legal services: 51 of 87 requests filled (58.6%).
Peer counseling: 1,070 of 1,139 requests filled (93.9%).
IL skills training: 677 of 714 requests filled (94.8%).
Housing and home modifications: 281 of 286 requests filled (98.3%).
Assistive technology: 622 of 622 requests filled (100.0%).
Youth transition: 106 of 106 requests filled (100.0%).

Goals by category

Goals set, achieved and in progress, report year 2023
Goal category	Set	Achieved	In progress
Communication	42	40	2
Community-based living	152	151	1
Educational	6	0	6
Information access and technology	527	507	20
Personal resource management	465	465	0
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	4	0	4
Community and social participation	804	785	19

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	1
5 to 19	54
20 to 24	69
25 to 59	539
60 and older	799
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	83
Mental or emotional	32
Physical	1,014
Hearing	3
Vision	38
Multiple disabilities	203
Other	89

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with California residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 47 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	546	38.6%	42.3%	0.91
Black or African American	186	13.1%	6.4%	2.07
American Indian or Alaska Native	14	1.0%	1.2%	0.82
Asian	38	2.7%	10.2%	0.26
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	6	0.4%	0.4%	1.19
Two or more races	179	12.7%	11.9%	1.06
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	446	31.5%	27.6%	1.14

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.