Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago

What the center reported

411Consumers served190 carried over, 221 new
887Information and referral contacts
$274,971Total income
$0Part B
$23,548Part C
212Goals achievedof 234 set
19Moved 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)	$0
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$23,548
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$32,163
State government funds	$46,612
Local government funds	$16,093
Private and other	$156,555
Total income	$274,971

Eight years of reports

Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago 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	563	$173,092	$0	$19,011	23
2017	671	$209,212	$0	$18,820	43
2018	586	$39,683	$0	$21,042	8
2019	388	$40,534	$0	$21,518	6
2020	400	$132,837	$0	$21,518	1
2021	430	$139,332	$0	$21,480	8
2022	501	$319,195	$0	$21,734	21
2023	411	$274,971	$0	$23,548	19

Consumers served, by year

2016563
2017671
2018586
2019388
2020400
2021430
2022501
2023411

Measures against peers

Percentiles place this center among the 349 centers reporting in 2023 (national) and among centers of similar size (size peers: quartile 1 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	$669	97th	95th	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	$1,297	88th	76th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	90.6%	94th	96th	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	73.1%	57th	51th	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	4.62	81th	78th	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	80.69	98th	99th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	87.7%	22th	24th	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	24th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 14 of 21 members.
Staff with disabilities	62.0%	23th	5th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 16.7 of 26.9 FTE.
Equity index	62.0	4th	10th	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	56.6%	7th	9th	Coefficient of variation of total income across the years reported. Lower ranks higher.
Data-quality flags	1	5th	3th	Failed arithmetic checks in this year's report. Fewer ranks higher. Listed below.

Title VII funds (Parts B and C and Chapter 2) were 8.6% of income.

Services requested and received

Consumers requesting and receiving each service, report year 2023Information and referral is counted as contacts (887) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
IL skills training	243	243	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	97	97	100.0%
Vocational services	52	29	55.8%
Personal assistance	42	3	7.1%
Assistive technology	33	33	100.0%
Youth transition	16	16	100.0%
Peer counseling	13	13	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	3	3	100.0%
Family services	2	2	100.0%
Communication services	1	1	100.0%
Counseling and related services	1	1	100.0%
Other services	1	1	100.0%
All services	504	442	87.7%

Largest unmet demand

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

Personal assistance: 3 of 42 requests filled (7.1%).
Vocational services: 29 of 52 requests filled (55.8%).
Assistive technology: 33 of 33 requests filled (100.0%).
Housing and home modifications: 97 of 97 requests filled (100.0%).
IL skills training: 243 of 243 requests filled (100.0%).
Peer counseling: 13 of 13 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	15	17	25
Community-based living	40	34	200
Educational	5	20	24
Vocational	29	28	37
Self-care	0	0	1
Information access and technology	25	34	66
Personal resource management	69	60	109
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	45	19	59
Other	6	0	4

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	0
5 to 19	22
20 to 24	29
25 to 59	241
60 and older	112
Age unavailable	7

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	42
Mental or emotional	84
Physical	145
Hearing	2
Vision	12
Multiple disabilities	115
Other	11

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with Illinois residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 2 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	28	6.8%	61.7%	0.11
Black or African American	315	77.0%	16.5%	4.68
American Indian or Alaska Native	2	0.5%	0.5%	1.08
Asian	4	1.0%	3.4%	0.29
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0	0.0%	0.0%	0.00
Two or more races	7	1.7%	6.4%	0.27
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	53	13.0%	11.6%	1.12

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.

Goals achieved exceed goals set. For at least one goal category, more goals were achieved than were set.

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.