Center for Independent Living
Center for Independent Living serving California. Grant 2347CAILCL. Report year 2023 unless a table says otherwise.
What the center reported
- 25Consumers served6 carried over, 19 new
- 1,656Information and referral contacts
- $448,518Total income
- $0Part B
- $179,324Part C
- 12Goals achievedof 18 set
- 0Moved out of institutionsrelocation goals achieved
- 8Years reportedof 8 since 2016
Funding sources
| Source | Amount |
|---|---|
| Title VII Part B (through the state) | $0 |
| Title VII Part C (direct federal) | $179,324 |
| Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind) | $0 |
| Other federal funds | $53,269 |
| State government funds | $77,429 |
| Local government funds | $26,049 |
| Private and other | $112,447 |
| Total income | $448,518 |
Eight years of reports
| Report year | Consumers served | Total income | Part B | Part C | Moved out of institutions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 43 | $140,847 | $0 | $140,847 | 0 |
| 2017 | 69 | $140,895 | $0 | $140,895 | 0 |
| 2018 | 96 | $0 | $0 | $158,668 | 1 |
| 2019 | 44 | $692,786 | $0 | $163,434 | 0 |
| 2020 | 4 | $386,197 | $0 | $163,434 | 0 |
| 2021 | 32 | $911,782 | $0 | $163,144 | 0 |
| 2022 | 19 | $303,554 | $0 | $165,072 | 0 |
| 2023 | 25 | $448,518 | $0 | $179,324 | 0 |
Consumers served, by year
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.
| Measure | Value | National percentile | Size-peer percentile | What it is |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Income per consumer | $17,941 | 5th | 1th | 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 | $37,376 | 9th | 5th | Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty. |
| Goal achievement rate | 66.7% | 70th | 65th | 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 | 81.8% | 69th | 68th | 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 | 82.0% | 72th | 59th | The regulation requires more than 50%. 9 of 11 members. |
| Staff with disabilities | 100.0% | 90th | 76th | Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 2.0 of 2.0 FTE. |
| Equity index | 46.0 | 12th | 18th | 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 | 61.0% | 5th | 8th | 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 40.0% of income.
Services requested and received
| Service | Requested | Received | Fill rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advocacy and legal services | 14 | 14 | 100.0% |
| Communication services | 13 | 13 | 100.0% |
| Assistive technology | 7 | 7 | 100.0% |
| Other services | 6 | 6 | 100.0% |
| Housing and home modifications | 5 | 5 | 100.0% |
| Peer counseling | 5 | 5 | 100.0% |
| Preventive services | 5 | 5 | 100.0% |
| Vocational services | 5 | 5 | 100.0% |
| IL skills training | 3 | 3 | 100.0% |
| Personal assistance | 1 | 1 | 100.0% |
| Transportation | 1 | 1 | 100.0% |
| All services | 65 | 65 | 100.0% |
Largest unmet demand
Services with ten or more requests, ordered by the share that went unfilled.
- Advocacy and legal services: 14 of 14 requests filled (100.0%).
- Communication services: 13 of 13 requests filled (100.0%).
Goals by category
| Goal category | Set | Achieved | In progress |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community-based living | 5 | 3 | 0 |
| Educational | 6 | 5 | 0 |
| Vocational | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| Personal resource management | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Other | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Who the center served
| Age | Consumers |
|---|---|
| Under 5 | 0 |
| 5 to 19 | 0 |
| 20 to 24 | 3 |
| 25 to 59 | 11 |
| 60 and older | 11 |
| Age unavailable | 0 |
| Disability | Consumers |
|---|---|
| Cognitive | 3 |
| Mental or emotional | 2 |
| Physical | 12 |
| Hearing | 1 |
| Vision | 1 |
| Multiple disabilities | 4 |
| Other | 2 |
Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population
| Group | Consumers | Share of consumers | Share of state disability population | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 4 | 16.0% | 42.3% | 0.38 |
| Black or African American | 5 | 20.0% | 6.4% | 3.15 |
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 | 0.0% | 1.2% | 0.00 |
| Asian | 1 | 4.0% | 10.2% | 0.39 |
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.00 |
| Two or more races | 0 | 0.0% | 11.9% | 0.00 |
| Hispanic or Latino (any race) | 15 | 60.0% | 27.6% | 2.17 |
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.