Westchester ILC 2

What the center reported

232Consumers served13 carried over, 219 new
319Information and referral contacts
$218,409Total income
$0Part B
$214,409Part C
1,003Goals achievedof 1,143 set
134Moved 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)	$214,409
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$0
State government funds	$0
Local government funds	$0
Private and other	$4,000
Total income	$218,409

Eight years of reports

Westchester ILC 2 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	374	$197,282	$0	$162,552	4
2017	193	$196,390	$0	$161,591	5
2018	318	$215,823	$0	$181,024	2
2019	254	$258,916	$0	$194,065	0
2020	257	$322,878	$0	$194,065	0
2021	194	$260,399	$0	$193,720	50
2022	184	$201,510	$0	$196,010	125
2023	232	$218,409	$0	$214,409	134

Consumers served, by year

2016374
2017193
2018318
2019254
2020257
2021194
2022184
2023232

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	$941	92th	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	$218	100th	99th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	87.8%	93th	93th	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	93.5%	90th	89th	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	57.76	100th	99th	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	62.50	97th	98th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	100.0%	76th	77th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	73.0%	53th	36th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 8 of 11 members.
Staff with disabilities	81.0%	56th	34th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 2.5 of 3.1 FTE.
Equity index	38.2	19th	28th	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	17.6%	60th	56th	Coefficient of variation of total income across the years reported. Lower ranks higher.
Data-quality flags	0	54th	53th	Failed arithmetic checks in this year's report. Fewer ranks higher. Listed below.

Title VII funds (Parts B and C and Chapter 2) were 98.2% of income.

Services requested and received

Consumers requesting and receiving each service, report year 2023Information and referral is counted as contacts (319) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
IL skills training	231	231	100.0%
Preventive services	205	205	100.0%
Family services	199	199	100.0%
Other services	145	145	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	96	96	100.0%
Assistive technology	84	84	100.0%
Transportation	79	79	100.0%
Youth transition	44	44	100.0%
Vocational services	40	40	100.0%
Communication services	15	15	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	14	14	100.0%
Peer counseling	14	14	100.0%
Counseling and related services	1	1	100.0%
All services	1,167	1,167	100.0%

Largest unmet demand

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

Advocacy and legal services: 96 of 96 requests filled (100.0%).
Assistive technology: 84 of 84 requests filled (100.0%).
Communication services: 15 of 15 requests filled (100.0%).
Family services: 199 of 199 requests filled (100.0%).
Housing and home modifications: 14 of 14 requests filled (100.0%).
IL skills training: 231 of 231 requests filled (100.0%).

Goals by category

Goals set, achieved and in progress, report year 2023
Goal category	Set	Achieved	In progress
Communication	198	175	10
Mobility and transportation	47	30	5
Community-based living	192	173	7
Educational	206	186	7
Vocational	30	29	1
Information access and technology	182	155	25
Personal resource management	137	121	4
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	151	134	5

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	0
5 to 19	17
20 to 24	34
25 to 59	171
60 and older	10
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	51
Mental or emotional	120
Physical	28
Hearing	0
Vision	11
Multiple disabilities	14
Other	8

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with New York residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 0 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	58	25.0%	53.5%	0.47
Black or African American	108	46.6%	15.0%	3.11
American Indian or Alaska Native	1	0.4%	0.6%	0.72
Asian	1	0.4%	5.2%	0.08
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	2	0.9%	0.1%	15.72
Two or more races	7	3.0%	7.8%	0.39
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	55	23.7%	17.9%	1.33

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.