State Independent Living Council logo

State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL) for California for 2014 - 2016

Part II: Narrative: Section 3 - Design for the Statewide Network of Centers

3.1 Existing Network

Provide an overview of the existing network of centers, including non-Part C-funded centers that comply with the standards and assurances in section 725 (b) and (c) of the Act, and the geographic areas and populations currently served by the centers.

California has 28 Independent Living Corporations that receive Social Security Reimbursements and 49 Part C grants. All locations comply with the standards and assurances in section 725 (b) and (c) of the Act: they practice the IL Philosophy, employ persons with disabilities, offer all of the core services, are fully accessible, and more. In its compliance review, the DSU ensures that corporations with more than one Part C grant maintain accounting systems compliant with OMB that separate out the funds for the different grants. They also require that CILs that share a Board of Directors have representatives from all the geographic areas served as members. However, some of the locations funded with Part C funds are dependent upon the larger corporations for administrative support, financial support, and Boards of Directors. Most of these locations are run as branch offices of an Independent Living Center. Some offices are in communities so remote that there is not a high enough population to normally warrant a fully functioning CIL. In particular, some of the rural communities in California that lack other supportive services benefit greatly from these offices. If these locations were required to become autonomous, people with disabilities in those communities would receive fewer services. The geographic areas served by the centers are primarily represented by county. Below is a list of the 28 Independent Living Corporations recognized by California:

  • Access to Independence (a2i) serves Imperial County, Northern San Diego County and Southern San Diego County;
  • Center for Independence of the Disabled (CID) serves Northern and Southern San Mateo County;
  • Center for Independent Living (CIL) serves Northern Alameda County, including East Oakland and the Fruitvale District;
  • Central Coast Center for Independent Living (CCCIL) serves Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz Counties;
  • Communities Actively Living Independent & Free (CALIF) serves central Los Angeles County;
  • Community Access Center (CAC) serves Eastern and Western Riverside Counties;
  • Disability Services & Legal Center (DSLC) serves Lake, Mendocino, Napa and Sonoma Counties;
  • Community Resources for Independent Living, Inc. (CRIL) serves Southern Alameda County;
  • Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled (DMC) serves Central and Western Orange Counties;
  • Disability Resources Agency for Independent Living (DRAIL) serves Mariposa, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Amador, Calaveras and San Joaquin Counties;
  • Disabled Resource Center, Inc. (DRC) serves Southwest Los Angeles County;
  • FREED Center for Independent Living serves Colusa, Sutter, Yuba, Nevada and Sierra Counties;
  • Independent Living Center of Kern County (ILCKC) serves Kern County;
  • Independent Living Center of Southern California (ILCSC) serves Northwest Los Angeles County;
  • Independent Living Resource Center (ILRC) serves Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo Counties;
  • Independent Living Resource Center, San Francisco (ILRC-SF) serves San Francisco County, including the Latino Mission District and Chinatown;
  • Independent Living Resource of Solano and Contra Costa Counties (ILRSCC) serves Solano and Contra Costa Counties;
  • Independent Living Services of Northern California (ILSNC) serves Shasta, Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, Butte, Glenn, Plumas and Tehama Counties;
  • Marin Center for Independent Living (MCIL) serves Marin County;
  • Placer Independent Resource Services (PIRS) serves Alpine, El Dorado, and Placer Counties;
  • Resources for Independence, Central Valley (RICV) serves Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings and Tulare Counties;
  • Resources for Independent Living serves Sacramento and Yolo Counties;
  • Rolling Start, Inc. serves Inyo, Mono and San Bernardino Counties;
  • Services Center for Independent Living (SCIL) serves the Eastern San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys in Los Angeles County;
  • Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) serves Northern and Southern Santa Clara Counties;
  • Southern California Rehabilitation Services (SCRS) serves Southeast Los Angeles County, Eastern Los Angeles City and the Western San Gabriel Valley in Los Angeles County;
  • Tri-County Independent Living, Inc. (TILI) serves Del Norte, Humboldt and Trinity Counties;
  • Westside Center for Independent Living (WCIL) serves West Los Angeles County.

3.2 Expansion of Network

Describe the design for the further expansion of the network, including identification of the unserved and underserved areas in the State and the order of priority for serving these areas as additional funding becomes available (beyond the required cost-of-living increase).

California is not currently considering expanding its network. Service areas within the state have been divided up such that every region has a non-profit Part C federally-funded center for independent living (CIL) responsible for it.

In the event that one of these existing centers should cease operations, the first priority of the State for the federal funding awarded to the center that ceased operations is to have RSA conduct a competition for a new center for the same geographical service area covered by the center that ceased operations. In the event that a federally-funded center that receives and operates multiple grants under the Part C program ceases CIL operations, the State's priority is to use the federal funding from the multiple grants to make one grant award to a CIL that would serve the geographic area.

The new CIL must demonstrate an ability to serve the community through the provision of direct IL services, community education and outreach, have a physical office centrally located within the geographical service area, and meet all other requirements of a Center for Independent Living that are stated in Title VII Part C of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

Although not part of the criteria used to select the center, the new CIL should also demonstrate cultural competence to serve the people of that service area. Cultural competence requires that organizations:

  • Have a defined set of values and principles, and demonstrate behaviors, attitudes, policies, and structures that enable them to work effectively cross-culturally.
  • Have the capacity to (1) value diversity, (2) conduct self-assessment, (3) manage the dynamics of difference, (4) acquire and institutionalize cultural knowledge, and (5) adapt to diversity and the cultural contexts of the communities they serve.
  • Incorporate the above in all aspects of policy-making, administration, practice, service delivery, staff training and staff development, and systematically involve consumers, families and communities.

Funds available to Independent Living Centers under California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 19800 will be allocated in line with the formula in statute. The State encourages use of the allocation formula funding to support multiple CIL office locations within a catchment area as needed to increase access to IL services. Organizations that receive base funding under the allocation formula will not be eligible for an additional base allocation when awarded an additional grant(s) under Title VII Part C.

Unfortunately, there are insufficient funds to fully serve many communities and so consensus is that, if no new centers are funded, new Title VII Part C funds (after COLAs) should be allocated to the existing 28 California-recognized IL corporations that receive and operate the 49 Part C CIL grants. As part of this SPIL, California will convene a workgroup to propose a new, more equitable formula to allocate funds to centers.

3.3 Section 723 States Only

3.3A If the State follows an order of priorities for allocating funds among centers within a State that is different from what is outlined in 34 CFR 366.22, describe the alternate order of priority that the DSU director and the SILC chair have agreed upon. Indicate N/A if not applicable.


3.3B Describe how the State policies, practices and procedures governing the awarding of grants to centers and the oversight of these centers are consistent with 34 CFR 366.37 and 366.38.



Return to SPIL Table of Contents