Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities

What the center reported

449Consumers served369 carried over, 80 new
1,796Information and referral contacts
$168,737Total income
$0Part B
$168,737Part C
36Goals achievedof 170 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)	$168,737
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	$168,737

Eight years of reports

Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities 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	166	$132,531	$0	$132,531	1
2017	154	$132,577	$0	$132,577	0
2018	189	$164,432	$0	$149,301	0
2019	215	$1,201,118	$0	$157,385	0
2020	103	$1,170,225	$0	$153,785	0
2021	70	$153,512	$0	$153,512	0
2022	189	$1,298,692	$0	$155,327	0
2023	449	$168,737	$0	$168,737	0

Consumers served, by year

2016166
2017154
2018189
2019215
2020103
202170
2022189
2023449

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	$376	100th	98th	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	$4,687	56th	37th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	21.2%	17th	19th	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	78.6%	67th	63th	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	50.3%	3th	2th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	60.0%	20th	13th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 3 of 5 members.
Staff with disabilities	110.0%	100th	99th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 11.0 of 10.0 FTE.
Equity index	11.4	83th	86th	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	94.2%	2th	5th	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.

Services requested and received

Consumers requesting and receiving each service, report year 2023Information and referral is counted as contacts (1,796) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Other services	71	9	12.7%
IL skills training	40	32	80.0%
Housing and home modifications	22	19	86.4%
Assistive technology	10	4	40.0%
Advocacy and legal services	8	5	62.5%
Communication services	6	6	100.0%
Counseling and related services	5	5	100.0%
Vocational services	3	1	33.3%
Family services	2	2	100.0%
Children's services	1	1	100.0%
Transportation	1	1	100.0%
All services	169	85	50.3%

Largest unmet demand

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

Other services: 9 of 71 requests filled (12.7%).
Assistive technology: 4 of 10 requests filled (40.0%).
IL skills training: 32 of 40 requests filled (80.0%).
Housing and home modifications: 19 of 22 requests filled (86.4%).

Goals by category

Goals set, achieved and in progress, report year 2023
Goal category	Set	Achieved	In progress
Self-advocacy and self-empowerment	11	2	8
Communication	1	0	1
Mobility and transportation	12	2	10
Community-based living	105	29	75
Vocational	1	0	1
Self-care	11	2	9
Information access and technology	1	0	1
Personal resource management	15	1	14
Community and social participation	2	0	2
Other	11	0	11

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	3
5 to 19	3
20 to 24	3
25 to 59	93
60 and older	347
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	10
Mental or emotional	49
Physical	139
Hearing	3
Vision	10
Multiple disabilities	58
Other	180

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with California residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 50 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	156	39.1%	42.3%	0.92
Black or African American	19	4.8%	6.4%	0.75
American Indian or Alaska Native	1	0.3%	1.2%	0.21
Asian	65	16.3%	10.2%	1.60
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	11	2.8%	0.4%	7.75
Two or more races	25	6.3%	11.9%	0.52
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	122	30.6%	27.6%	1.11

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.