Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled

What the center reported

534Consumers served244 carried over, 290 new
2,407Information and referral contacts
$2,090,046Total income
$0Part B
$394,569Part C
503Goals achievedof 627 set
7Moved 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)	$394,569
Title VII Chapter 2 (older individuals who are blind)	$0
Other federal funds	$979,357
State government funds	$328,831
Local government funds	$4,807
Private and other	$382,482
Total income	$2,090,046

Eight years of reports

Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled 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	611	$1,572,331	$8,149	$292,025	3
2017	715	$1,668,800	$53,208	$310,015	3
2018	829	$1,862,655	$60,018	$349,121	4
2019	640	$2,626,687	$25,747	$359,607	4
2020	766	$2,980,181	$0	$359,607	18
2021	993	$2,838,370	$0	$358,968	7
2022	879	$2,039,449	$0	$363,211	10
2023	534	$2,090,046	$0	$394,569	7

Consumers served, by year

2016611
2017715
2018829
2019640
2020766
2021993
2022879
2023534

Measures against peers

Percentiles place this center among the 349 centers reporting in 2023 (national) and among centers of similar size (size peers: quartile 3 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	$3,914	38th	27th	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	$4,155	61th	57th	Total income divided by goals achieved. Lower ranks higher. Goals are self-reported and are not weighted by difficulty.
Goal achievement rate	80.2%	86th	82th	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	83.9%	72th	64th	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	1.31	61th	66th	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	1.77	54th	47th	The same count against direct federal funding.
Service fill rate	103.9%	100th	98th	Consumers receiving a service as a share of consumers requesting it, across all service types except information and referral.
Board members with significant disabilities	100.0%	93th	93th	The regulation requires more than 50%. 8 of 8 members.
Staff with disabilities	72.0%	40th	49th	Share of staff full-time equivalents filled by people with disabilities. 17.2 of 24.0 FTE.
Equity index	19.1	58th	50th	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	22.8%	41th	44th	Coefficient of variation of total income across the years reported. Lower ranks higher.
Data-quality flags	1	5th	8th	Failed arithmetic checks in this year's report. Fewer ranks higher. Listed below.

Title VII funds (Parts B and C and Chapter 2) were 18.9% of income; Part B varied by 128.3% (coefficient of variation) across the years reported.

Services requested and received

Consumers requesting and receiving each service, report year 2023Information and referral is counted as contacts (2,407) and is not in this table.
Service	Requested	Received	Fill rate
Assistive technology	190	217	114.2%
IL skills training	178	202	113.5%
Housing and home modifications	163	126	77.3%
Advocacy and legal services	109	130	119.3%
Peer counseling	101	107	105.9%
Communication services	91	92	101.1%
Personal assistance	59	45	76.3%
Mobility training	29	30	103.4%
Youth transition	19	27	142.1%
Transportation	14	14	100.0%
Recreational services	10	10	100.0%
Vocational services	6	6	100.0%
Other services	4	5	125.0%
All services	973	1,011	103.9%

Largest unmet demand

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

Personal assistance: 45 of 59 requests filled (76.3%).
Housing and home modifications: 126 of 163 requests filled (77.3%).
Recreational services: 10 of 10 requests filled (100.0%).
Transportation: 14 of 14 requests filled (100.0%).
Communication services: 92 of 91 requests filled (101.1%).
Mobility training: 30 of 29 requests filled (103.4%).

Goals by category

Goals set, achieved and in progress, report year 2023
Goal category	Set	Achieved	In progress
Self-advocacy and self-empowerment	38	24	14
Communication	51	42	9
Mobility and transportation	2	2	2
Community-based living	35	26	9
Educational	7	5	2
Self-care	86	72	14
Information access and technology	133	110	23
Personal resource management	175	145	30
Relocation from a nursing home or institution	11	7	4
Community and social participation	50	40	10
Other	39	30	10

Who the center served

Consumers by age
Age	Consumers
Under 5	0
5 to 19	17
20 to 24	38
25 to 59	198
60 and older	281
Age unavailable	0

Consumers by disability type
Disability	Consumers
Cognitive	57
Mental or emotional	22
Physical	125
Hearing	43
Vision	66
Multiple disabilities	197
Other	24

Race and ethnicity against the state's disability population

Consumers compared with California residents with a disabilityCenter shares exclude 20 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	171	33.3%	42.3%	0.79
Black or African American	48	9.3%	6.4%	1.47
American Indian or Alaska Native	1	0.2%	1.2%	0.16
Asian	56	10.9%	10.2%	1.07
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	4	0.8%	0.4%	2.19
Two or more races	15	2.9%	11.9%	0.24
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	219	42.6%	27.6%	1.54

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.

More received a service than requested it. For at least one service type, the count receiving exceeds the count requesting.

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.