Disability Services and Legal Center

What the center reported

313Consumers served209 carried over, 104 new
539Information and referral contacts
$239,037Total income
$38,197Part B
$200,840Part C
173Goals achievedof 472 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)	$38,197
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$200,840
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	$0
Total income	$239,037

Eight years of reports

Disability Services and Legal Center by report yearA blank row means no report was found for that year.
Report year	Consumers served	Total income	Part B	Part C
2016	134	$157,747	$0	$157,747
2017	191	$157,801	$0	$157,801
2018	195	$177,706	$0	$177,706
2019	204	$183,043	$0	$183,043
2020	179	$183,043	$0	$183,043
2021	201	$183,043	$0	$183,043
2022	263	$184,878	$0	$184,878
2023	313	$239,037	$38,197	$200,840

Consumers served, by year

2016134
2017191
2018195
2019204
2020179
2021201
2022263
2023313

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	$764	95th	88th	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	$1,382	87th	73th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	36.7%	34th	36th	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	63.2%	48th	45th	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	14th	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	14th	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	71.0%	48th	32th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 5 of 7 members.
Staff with disabilities	80.0%	54th	30th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 4.0 of 5.0 FTE.
Equity index	28.9	35th	43th	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	12.9%	78th	75th	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 100.0% of income; Part B varied by 264.6% (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 (539) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
IL skills training	292	292	100.0%
Peer counseling	289	289	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	250	250	100.0%
Assistive technology	50	50	100.0%
Youth transition	14	14	100.0%
Housing and home modifications	9	9	100.0%
Vocational services	3	3	100.0%
Personal assistance	2	2	100.0%
Children's services	1	1	100.0%
Counseling and related services	1	1	100.0%
Mobility training	1	1	100.0%
Physical restoration	1	1	100.0%
All services	913	913	100.0%

Largest unmet demand

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

Advocacy and legal services: 250 of 250 requests filled (100.0%).
Assistive technology: 50 of 50 requests filled (100.0%).
IL skills training: 292 of 292 requests filled (100.0%).
Peer counseling: 289 of 289 requests filled (100.0%).
Youth transition: 14 of 14 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	171	81	87
Communication	2	0	2
Community-based living	41	1	40
Educational	99	50	49
Vocational	3	2	1
Self-care	52	26	24
Information access and technology	34	1	33
Personal resource management	64	10	52
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	2	0	0
Community and social participation	1	0	1
Other	3	2	1

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	2
5 to 19	16
20 to 24	11
25 to 59	175
60 and older	109
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	13
Mental or emotional	40
Physical	121
Hearing	3
Vision	3
Multiple disabilities	125
Other	8

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with California residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 23 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	168	57.9%	42.3%	1.37
Black or African American	5	1.7%	6.4%	0.27
American Indian or Alaska Native	42	14.5%	1.2%	12.04
Asian	1	0.3%	10.2%	0.03
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0	0.0%	0.4%	0.00
Two or more races	3	1.0%	11.9%	0.09
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	71	24.5%	27.6%	0.89

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.