Community Access Center

What the center reported

496Consumers served81 carried over, 415 new
3,259Information and referral contacts
$476,722Total income
$0Part B
$264,532Part C
686Goals achievedof 811 set
1Moved 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)	$264,532
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$0
State government funds	$0
Local government funds	$209,097
Private and other	$3,093
Total income	$476,722

Eight years of reports

Community Access Center 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	375	$377,598	$0	$235,046	1
2017	229	$239,831	$0	$207,843	0
2018	292	$254,325	$0	$234,061	0
2019	229	$335,462	$0	$241,091	0
2020	264	$352,420	$0	$241,091	1
2021	538	$479,551	$0	$240,663	4
2022	683	$382,002	$0	$243,508	1
2023	496	$476,722	$0	$264,532	1

Consumers served, by year

2016375
2017229
2018292
2019229
2020264
2021538
2022683
2023496

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	$961	91th	78th	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	$695	94th	87th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	84.6%	90th	88th	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	96.4%	94th	94th	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	0.20	28th	30th	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	0.38	29th	35th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	85.5%	19th	22th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	88.0%	81th	73th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 7 of 8 members.
Staff with disabilities	91.0%	75th	47th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 21.0 of 23.0 FTE.
Equity index	21.6	52th	59th	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	22.9%	40th	41th	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 55.5% of income.

Services requested and received

Consumers requesting and receiving each service, report year 2023Information and referral is counted as contacts (3,259) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Peer counseling	335	285	85.1%
IL skills training	283	246	86.9%
Assistive technology	95	82	86.3%
Advocacy and legal services	41	27	65.9%
Housing and home modifications	17	17	100.0%
Youth transition	15	15	100.0%
All services	786	672	85.5%

Largest unmet demand

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

Advocacy and legal services: 27 of 41 requests filled (65.9%).
Peer counseling: 285 of 335 requests filled (85.1%).
Assistive technology: 82 of 95 requests filled (86.3%).
IL skills training: 246 of 283 requests filled (86.9%).
Housing and home modifications: 17 of 17 requests filled (100.0%).
Youth transition: 15 of 15 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	43	27	16
Community-based living	52	11	41
Self-care	2	0	2
Information access and technology	95	82	13
Personal resource management	283	280	3
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	1	1	0
Community and social participation	335	285	50

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	4
5 to 19	8
20 to 24	6
25 to 59	229
60 and older	249
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	25
Mental or emotional	42
Physical	395
Hearing	2
Vision	9
Multiple disabilities	16
Other	7

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with California residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 6 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	194	39.6%	42.3%	0.94
Black or African American	42	8.6%	6.4%	1.35
American Indian or Alaska Native	3	0.6%	1.2%	0.51
Asian	3	0.6%	10.2%	0.06
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	3	0.6%	0.4%	1.72
Two or more races	16	3.3%	11.9%	0.27
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	229	46.7%	27.6%	1.69

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.