Center for Independent Living

What the center reported

37Consumers served24 carried over, 13 new
1,650Information and referral contacts
$752,670Total income
$0Part B
$200,112Part C
24Goals achievedof 42 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)	$0
Title VII Part C (direct federal)	$200,112
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$109,342
State government funds	$158,933
Local government funds	$53,470
Private and other	$230,813
Total income	$752,670

Eight years of reports

Center for Independent Living 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	123	$157,175	$0	$157,175	1
2017	105	$157,229	$0	$157,229	0
2018	143	$177,062	$0	$177,062	1
2019	51	$773,097	$0	$182,380	1
2020	19	$418,021	$0	$182,380	0
2021	109	$930,694	$0	$182,056	0
2022	75	$730,849	$0	$184,208	0
2023	37	$752,670	$0	$200,112	0

Consumers served, by year

2016123
2017105
2018143
201951
202019
2021109
202275
202337

Measures against peers

Percentiles place this center among the 349 centers reporting in 2023 (national) and among centers of similar size (size peers: quartile 2 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	$20,342	4th	2th	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	$31,361	10th	6th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	57.1%	58th	64th	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	73.2%	58th	61th	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	10th	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	10th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	100.0%	76th	76th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	82.0%	72th	72th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 9 of 11 members.
Staff with disabilities	57.0%	15th	13th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 4.0 of 7.0 FTE.
Equity index	29.0	35th	36th	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	58.7%	7th	6th	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 26.6% of income.

Services requested and received

Consumers requesting and receiving each service, report year 2023Information and referral is counted as contacts (1,650) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Housing and home modifications	19	19	100.0%
Preventive services	16	16	100.0%
Assistive technology	15	15	100.0%
Youth transition	11	11	100.0%
Peer counseling	8	8	100.0%
Advocacy and legal services	7	7	100.0%
IL skills training	7	7	100.0%
Personal assistance	5	5	100.0%
Transportation	3	3	100.0%
Mobility training	2	2	100.0%
Vocational services	1	1	100.0%
All services	94	94	100.0%

Largest unmet demand

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

Assistive technology: 15 of 15 requests filled (100.0%).
Housing and home modifications: 19 of 19 requests filled (100.0%).
Preventive services: 16 of 16 requests filled (100.0%).
Youth transition: 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
Mobility and transportation	4	0	0
Community-based living	15	7	2
Educational	10	10	0
Vocational	1	2	0
Self-care	3	1	0
Information access and technology	8	4	1
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	1	0	1

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	0
5 to 19	0
20 to 24	8
25 to 59	18
60 and older	11
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	10
Mental or emotional	3
Physical	12
Hearing	0
Vision	2
Multiple disabilities	7
Other	3

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with California residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 4 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	7	21.2%	42.3%	0.50
Black or African American	11	33.3%	6.4%	5.24
American Indian or Alaska Native	1	3.0%	1.2%	2.52
Asian	3	9.1%	10.2%	0.89
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0	0.0%	0.4%	0.00
Two or more races	4	12.1%	11.9%	1.01
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	7	21.2%	27.6%	0.77

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.

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.