DOCSLIB.ORG

Old East York Profile: Prevention

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

N58 – Old East York Profile: Prevention

  • City of
  • Toronto

  • Toronto Central LHIN
  • Old East York

Count,
%
Count,
%
Count,
%

  • ¦
  • (95% CI)
  • ¦
  • Rate

Indicators

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

Ratio*

Mammograms (2009-2011) ª

Women, aged 50-59

  • Total eligible population **
  • 152,883

54.5
65,948
53.9
609 58.1 562
¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦¦¦
¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦¦¦
% of all eligible women having a mammogram within last 2 years Total eligible population using services *** % of all women using services who also had a mammogram

Women, aged 60-69

(54.2-62.0) (59.0-67.0)
1.07 NS 1.04 NS
138,100
60.3
58,962

  • 60.2
  • 63.0

  • Total eligible population **
  • 131,959

57.5
56,131
56.5
499 57.1 468
% of all eligible women having a mammogram within last 2 years Total eligible population using services *** % of all women using services who also had a mammogram

Women, aged 50-69

(52.8-61.5) (56.5-65.3)
0.99 NS 0.98 NS
121,953
62.3
51,444

  • 61.7
  • 60.9

  • Total eligible population **
  • 284,842

55.9
122,079
55.1
1,108 57.7 57.6 1,030 62.0 61.9
% having a mammogram within last 2 years % having a mammogram within last 2 years - Age-Adjusted † Total eligible population using services *** % having a mammogram within last 2 years % having a mammogram within last 2 years - Age-Adjusted †
(54.8-60.6) (53.2-62.3)
1.03 NS

  • 1.03 NS
  • 56.1
  • 55.3

260,053
61.2
110,406

  • 60.9
  • (59.1-65.0)

(57.1-66.9)
1.01 NS

  • 1.01 NS
  • 61.4
  • 61.0

CI Confidence Interval.
H / L / NS Chances are at least 19 in 20 that the rate is higher (H) or lower (L) than the City of Toronto rate (p < 0.05). Rates marked not significantly (NS) different do not reach this level of significance. Data source: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care (MOHLTC) physician and laboratory claims. Includes data from the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP). Does not include data from providers at Community Health Centres (CHCs). Rate ratios were created by dividing the local area rate by the City of Toronto aggregate rate.

ª*

Denominator: Women eligible for provincial health insurance (OHIP) between April 1st, 2009-March 31st, 2011. Please see "About the Data" section for full list of eligibility criteria.

**

Denominator: Women eligible for provincial health insurance (OHIP) between April 1st, 2009-March 31st, 2011 who had contact with the health system within the previous 3 years. Please see "About the Data" section for full list of eligibility criteria. Rates are age-adjusted using the direct method and the 1991 Canada population as the standard population.

***
†

For information about definitions, data quality & limitations, and selection & preparation of variables, please go to: http://www.torontohealthprofiles.ca/aboutTheData.php

Page 1 of 5

© Toronto Community Health Profiles Partnership, 2001 - 2012.

N58 – Old East York Profile: Prevention

  • City of
  • Toronto

  • Toronto Central LHIN
  • Old East York

Count,
%
Count,
%
Count,
%

  • ¦
  • (95% CI)
  • ¦
  • Rate

Indicators

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

Ratio*

Pap smears (2008-2011) ª

Women, aged 21-34

  • Total eligible population **
  • 190,152

59.1
88,940
62.2
496 63.7 469
¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦¦¦
¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦¦¦
% of all eligible women having a Pap smear within last 3 years Total eligible population using services *** % of all women using services who also had a Pap smear

Women, aged 35-49

(59.5-67.9) (63.1-71.6)
1.08 H
177,832
63.2
83,547

  • 66.2
  • 67.4
  • 1.07 NS

  • Total eligible population **
  • 283,994

58.5
126,813
58.1
977 64.5 878
% of all eligible women having a Pap smear within last 3 years Total eligible population using services *** % of all women using services who also had a Pap smear

Women, aged 50-69

(61.5-67.5) (68.8-74.7)
1.10 H 1.06 H
244,335
68.0
107,166

  • 68.7
  • 71.8

  • Total eligible population **
  • 267,274

55.3
114,379
55.0
1,050 59.0 971
% of all eligible women having a Pap smear within last 3 years Total eligible population using services *** % of all women using services who also had a Pap smear

Women, aged 21-69

(56.0-61.9) (60.7-66.8)
1.07 H
241,067
61.3
102,028

  • 61.6
  • 63.7
  • 1.04 NS

  • Total eligible population **
  • 741,420

57.5
330,132
58.1
2,523 62.0 62.6 2,318 67.5 67.9
% having a Pap smear within last 3 years % having a Pap smear within last 3 years - Age-Adjusted † Total eligible population using services *** % having a Pap smear within last 3 years % having a Pap smear within last 3 years - Age-Adjusted †
(60.1-63.9) (59.3-66.0)
1.08 H

  • 1.08 H
  • 57.8
  • 58.6

663,234
64.3
292,741

  • 65.5
  • (65.6-69.4)

(64.4-71.6)
1.05 H

  • 1.05 H
  • 64.4
  • 65.8

CI Confidence Interval.
H / L / NS Chances are at least 19 in 20 that the rate is higher (H) or lower (L) than the City of Toronto rate (p < 0.05). Rates marked not significantly (NS) different do not reach this level of significance. Data source: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care (MOHLTC) physician and laboratory claims. Does not include laboratory data from hospitals.

ª

Rate ratios were created by dividing the local area rate by the City of Toronto aggregate rate. Denominator: Women eligible for provincial health insurance (OHIP) between April 1st, 2008-March 31st, 2011. Please see "About the Data" section for full list of eligibility criteria.

*
**

Denominator: Women eligible for provincial health insurance (OHIP) between April 1st, 2008-March 31st, 2011 who had contact with the health system within the previous 3 years. Please see "About the Data" section for full list of eligibility criteria. Rates are age-adjusted using the direct method and the 1991 Canada population as the standard population.

***
†

For information about definitions, data quality & limitations, and selection & preparation of variables, please go to: http://www.torontohealthprofiles.ca/aboutTheData.php

Page 2 of 5

© Toronto Community Health Profiles Partnership, 2001 - 2012.

N58 – Old East York Profile: Prevention

  • City of
  • Toronto

  • Toronto Central LHIN
  • Old East York

Count,
%
Count,
%
Count,
%

  • ¦
  • (95% CI)
  • ¦
  • Rate

Indicators

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

Ratio*

Any Colorectal Cancer Screening § (2011) ª

Men and women, aged 50-59

Total eligible population ** % screened §
309,272
47.4
135,071
47.4
1,178 51.4
¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦¦¦
¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦¦¦
(48.5-54.2) (52.8-58.7)
1.08 H
Total eligible population using services *** % screened §
275,278
53.1
118,927
53.6
1,082

  • 55.7
  • 1.05 NS

Men and women, aged 60-74

Total eligible population ** % screened §
354,276
56.3
150,297
55.8
1,386

  • 55.1
  • (52.4-57.7)

(57.1-62.5)
0.98 NS 0.97 NS
Total eligible population using services *** % screened §
324,306
61.4
136,315
61.3
1,276 59.8

Men and women, aged 50-74

Total eligible population ** % screened §
663,548
52.1
285,368
51.8
2,564 53.4 53.6 2,358 57.9 58.2
(51.4-55.3) (50.8-56.6)
1.02 NS

  • 1.02 NS
  • % screened §, Age-Adjusted †

Total eligible population using services *** % screened §

  • 52.8
  • 52.5

599,584
57.6
255,242

  • 57.7
  • (55.9-59.9)

(55.1-61.4)
1.01 NS

  • 1.00 NS
  • % screened §, Age-Adjusted †
  • 58.1
  • 58.3

CI Confidence Interval.
H / L / NS Chances are at least 19 in 20 that the rate is higher (H) or lower (L) than the City of Toronto rate (p < 0.05). Rates marked not significantly (NS) different do not reach this level of significance. Data source: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care (MOHLTC) physician and laboratory claims. Does not include data from providers at Community Health Centres (CHCs).

ª

Rate ratios for both sexes were created by dividing the local area rate by the City of Toronto aggregate rate. Denominator: Population eligible for provincial health insurance (OHIP) between April 1st, 2009-March 31st, 2011. Please see "About the Data" section for full list of eligibility criteria.

*
**

Denominator: Population eligible for provincial health insurance (OHIP) between April 1st, 2009-March 31st, 2011 who had contact with the health system within the previous 3 years. Please see "About the Data" section for full list of eligibility criteria. Any Colorectal screening includes any of the following: fecal occult blood testing (within 2 years); rigid sigmoidoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, single contrast barium enema, double contrast barium enema (within 5 years); or colonoscopy (within 10 years). For more information see the "About the Data" section.

***
§

Rates are age-adjusted using the direct method and the 1991 Canada population as the standard population.

†

For information about definitions, data quality & limitations, and selection & preparation of variables, please go to: http://www.torontohealthprofiles.ca/aboutTheData.php

Page 3 of 5

© Toronto Community Health Profiles Partnership, 2001 - 2012.

N58 – Old East York Profile: Prevention

  • City of
  • Toronto

  • Toronto Central LHIN
  • Old East York

Count,
%
Count,
%
Count,
%

  • ¦
  • (95% CI)
  • ¦
  • Rate

Indicators

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

Ratio*

Colonoscopy ‡ (2001-2011) ª

Men and women, aged 50-59

  • Total eligible population **
  • 309,272

30.7
135,071
32.9
1,178 35.7
¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦¦¦
¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦¦¦
% screened within last 10 years ‡ Total eligible population using services *** % screened within last 10 years ‡

Men and women, aged 60-74

Total eligible population **
(32.9-38.4) (35.7-41.5)
1.16 H 1.12 H
275,278
34.4
118,927
37.2
1,082 38.6

354,276
39.0
150,297
40.7
1,386

  • 37.0
  • % screened within last 10 years ‡

Total eligible population using services *** % screened within last 10 years ‡

Men and women, aged 50-74

Total eligible population **
(34.5-39.6) (37.5-42.9)
0.95 NS 0.95 NS
324,306
42.4
136,315
44.6
1,276 40.2

663,548
35.1
285,368
37.0
2,564 36.4 36.5 2,358 39.5 39.6
% screened within last 10 years ‡ % screened within last 10 years ‡, Age-Adjusted † Total eligible population using services *** % screened within last 10 years ‡ % screened within last 10 years ‡, Age-Adjusted †
(34.5-38.3) (34.2-38.9)
1.04 NS

  • 1.02 NS
  • 35.7
  • 37.6

599,584
38.7
255,242

  • 41.2
  • (37.5-41.5)

(37.1-42.2)
1.02 NS

  • 1.01 NS
  • 39.3
  • 41.7

CI Confidence Interval.
H / L / NS Chances are at least 19 in 20 that the rate is higher (H) or lower (L) than the City of Toronto rate (p < 0.05). Rates marked not significantly (NS) different do not reach this level of significance. Data source: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care (MOHLTC) physician and laboratory claims. Does not include data from providers at Community Health Centres (CHCs).

ª

Rate ratios for both sexes were created by dividing the local area rate by the City of Toronto aggregate rate. Denominator: Population eligible for provincial health insurance (OHIP) between April 1st, 2009-March 31st, 2011. Please see "About the Data" section for full list of eligibility criteria.

*
**

Denominator: Population eligible for provincial health insurance (OHIP) between April 1st, 2009-March 31st, 2011 who had contact with the health system within the previous 3 years. Please see "About the Data" section for full list of eligibility criteria. Colonoscopy (Z555 plus one of E740, E741, E747 or E705 on the same day).

***
‡†

Rates are age-adjusted using the direct method and the 1991 Canada population as the standard population.

For information about definitions, data quality & limitations, and selection & preparation of variables, please go to: http://www.torontohealthprofiles.ca/aboutTheData.php

Page 4 of 5

© Toronto Community Health Profiles Partnership, 2001 - 2012.

N58 – Old East York Profile: Prevention

  • City of
  • Toronto

  • Toronto Central LHIN
  • Old East York

Count,
%
Count,
%
Count,
%

  • ¦
  • (95% CI)
  • ¦
  • Rate

Indicators

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

¦

Ratio*

Fecal Occult Blood Testing ± (2009-2011) ª

Men and women, aged 50-59

  • Total eligible population **
  • 210,079

22.6
88,954
20.1
747 23.3 653
¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦¦¦
¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦

¦

¦¦¦¦¦¦
% of all eligible population screened within last 2 years Total eligible population using services *** % of all population using services who were screened

Men and women, aged 60-74

(20.3-26.3) (23.3-30.0)
1.03 NS 0.99 NS
176,392
26.9
72,982

  • 24.5
  • 26.6

  • Total eligible population **
  • 210,622

26.5
86,817
23.4
856 27.2 746
% of all eligible population screened within last 2 years Total eligible population using services *** % of all population using services who were screened

Men and women, aged 50-74

(24.2-30.2) (27.9-34.6)
1.03 NS 1.01 NS
181,112
30.8
73,102

  • 27.8
  • 31.2

  • Total eligible population **
  • 420,701

24.5
175,771
21.7
1,603 25.4 25.7 1,399 29.1 29.4

  • % screened within last 2 years
  • (23.3-27.5)

(23.2-28.3)
1.03 NS

  • 1.03 NS
  • % screened within last 2 years, Age-Adjusted †

Total eligible population using services *** % screened within last 2 years

  • 25.0
  • 22.1

357,504
28.9
146,084

  • 26.1
  • (26.7-31.5)

(26.6-32.5)
1.01 NS

  • 1.00 NS
  • % screened within last 2 years, Age-Adjusted †
  • 29.3
  • 26.5

CI Confidence Interval.
H / L / NS Chances are at least 19 in 20 that the rate is higher (H) or lower (L) than the City of Toronto rate (p < 0.05). Rates marked not significantly (NS) different do not reach this level of significance. Data source: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care (MOHLTC) physician and laboratory claims. Does not include data from providers at Community Health Centres (CHCs).

ª

Rate ratios were created by dividing the local area rate by the City of Toronto aggregate rate. Denominator: Population eligible for provincial health insurance (OHIP) between April 1st, 2009-March 31st, 2011. Please see "About the Data" section for full list of eligibility criteria.

*
**

Denominator: Population eligible for provincial health insurance (OHIP) between April 1st, 2009-March 31st, 2011 who had contact with the health system within the previous 3 years. Please see "About the Data" section for full list of eligibility criteria. FOBT: Fecal occult blood testing (L181, G004, L179, Q152, Q043 or Q133A).

***
±†

Rates are age-adjusted using the direct method and the 1991 Canada population as the standard population.

Recommended publications
  • City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average Price by Percentage Increase: January to June 2016

    City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average Price by Percentage Increase: January to June 2016

    City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average price by percentage increase: January to June 2016 C06 – $1,282,135 C14 – $2,018,060 1,624,017 C15 698,807 $1,649,510 972,204 869,656 754,043 630,542 672,659 1,968,769 1,821,777 781,811 816,344 3,412,579 763,874 $691,205 668,229 1,758,205 $1,698,897 812,608 *C02 $2,122,558 1,229,047 $890,879 1,149,451 1,408,198 *C01 1,085,243 1,262,133 1,116,339 $1,423,843 E06 788,941 803,251 Less than 10% 10% - 19.9% 20% & Above * 1,716,792 * 2,869,584 * 1,775,091 *W01 13.0% *C01 17.9% E01 12.9% W02 13.1% *C02 15.2% E02 20.0% W03 18.7% C03 13.6% E03 15.2% W04 19.9% C04 13.8% E04 13.5% W05 18.3% C06 26.9% E05 18.7% W06 11.1% C07 29.2% E06 8.9% W07 18.0% *C08 29.2% E07 10.4% W08 10.9% *C09 11.4% E08 7.7% W09 6.1% *C10 25.9% E09 16.2% W10 18.2% *C11 7.9% E10 20.1% C12 18.2% E11 12.4% C13 36.4% C14 26.4% C15 31.8% Compared to January to June 2015 Source: RE/MAX Hallmark, Toronto Real Estate Board Market Watch *Districts that recorded less than 100 sales were discounted to prevent the reporting of statistical anomalies R City of Toronto — Neighbourhoods by TREB District WEST W01 High Park, South Parkdale, Swansea, Roncesvalles Village W02 Bloor West Village, Baby Point, The Junction, High Park North W05 W03 Keelesdale, Eglinton West, Rockcliffe-Smythe, Weston-Pellam Park, Corso Italia W10 W04 York, Glen Park, Amesbury (Brookhaven), Pelmo Park – Humberlea, Weston, Fairbank (Briar Hill-Belgravia), Maple Leaf, Mount Dennis W05 Downsview, Humber Summit, Humbermede (Emery), Jane and Finch W09 W04 (Black Creek/Glenfield-Jane
  • Low Other* Dwelling Density Availability of Destinations

    Low Other* Dwelling Density Availability of Destinations

    21 24 116 130 2 35 36 50 49 48 27 131 22 34 37 117 129 3 25 51 52 47 46 4 132 26 38 53 118 1 5 33 40 128 135 134 23 39 45 6 29 113 28 32 105 133 31 41 42 119 126 137 7 8 30 103 127 136 115 112 108 102 43 125 100 138 140 11 10 110 109 101 99 44 9 111 107 104 56 55 139 106 124 Dwelling Availability of 91 92 97 54 120 density destinations 13 90 94 96 58 123 15 89 98 57 High - High 12 114 93 59 60 14 88 95 67 61 121 83 74 66 High - Low 87 80 79 71 68 69 62 16 75 64 122 86 84 81 78 76 65 Low - High 7372 63 85 70 Low - Low 20 17 82 77 Other* 18 19 0 2.5 5 km * Indicates DB belonged to the middle quintile of Neighbourhoods dwelling density and/or availability of destinations 1 West Humber-Clairville 25 Glenfield-Jane Heights 49 Bayview Woods-Steeles 73 Moss Park 96 Casa Loma 121 Oakridge 2 Mount Olive-Silverstone- 26 Downsview-Roding-CFB 50 Newtonbrook East 74 North St. James Town 97 Yonge-St.Clair 122 Birchcliffe-Cliffside Jamestown 27 York University Heights 51 Willowdale East 75 Church-Yonge Corridor 98 Rosedale-Moore Park 123 Cliffcrest 3 Thistletown-Beaumond Heights 28 Rustic 52 Bayview Village 76 Bay Street Corridor 99 Mount Pleasant East 124 Kennedy Park 4 Rexdale-Kipling 29 Maple Leaf 53 Henry Farm 77 Waterfront Communities- 100 Yonge-Eglinton 125 Ionview 5 Elms-Old Rexdale 30 Brookhaven-Amesbury 54 O'Connor-Parkview The Island 101 Forest Hill South 126 Dorset Park 6 Kingsview Village-The Westway 31 Yorkdale-Glen Park 55 Thorncliffe Park 78 Kensington-Chinatown 102 Forest Hill North 127 Bendale 7 Willowridge-Martingrove-Richview 32 Englemount-Lawrence
  • Planning for Missing Middle Housing in Toronto's Yellowbelt

    Planning for Missing Middle Housing in Toronto's Yellowbelt

    Filling in the Housing Gaps: Planning for Missing Middle Housing in Toronto’s Yellowbelt By Aria Popal Supervised by Dr. Luisa Sotomayor A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada July 31st, 2020 i ABSTRACT The City of Toronto is experiencing a well-known housing affordability crisis. As the fastest growing city in North America with the highest construction activity, expensive condominium developments in the City’s designated areas for growth, such as the downtown core, are dominating the housing market as the leading type of supply. On the other hand, Toronto prides itself upon being a city of neighbourhoods, by alluding to the other form of supply in the city as single-family homes or single detached dwellings. To contend with the convolutions of the housing market, a discourse of the Missing Middle emerged in the 2010s as a new angle from which to examine the housing affordability crisis in North American cities. The Missing Middle is a multifaceted term that generally refers to a need for more housing typologies that are in scale with single-family homes but are limited to four units in height; to be added as gentle or medium density to designated single-family neighbourhoods. I assess the Missing Middle as an approach, a strategy, and a discourse to moderate the housing crisis. By conducting interviews with interested city-builders, community members and vocal advocates for the development of Missing Middle housing in Toronto, this paper presents different views and perspectives on the limits and opportunities that such approach may provide.
  • The Hidden Epidemic: a Report on Child and Family Poverty in Toronto

    The Hidden Epidemic: a Report on Child and Family Poverty in Toronto

    DIVIDED CITY: Life in Canada’s Child Poverty Capital 2016 Toronto Child and Family Poverty Report Card DIVIDED CITY: Life in Canada’s Child Poverty Capital 2016 Toronto Child and Family Poverty Report Card November 2016 1 DIVIDED CITY: Life in Canada’s Child Poverty Capital 2016 Toronto Child and Family Poverty Report Card Acknowledgements This report was researched and written by a working group that included: Michael Polanyi Community Development and Prevention Program, Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Jessica Mustachi Family Service Toronto (Ontario Campaign 2000) michael kerr Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change Sean Meagher Social Planning Toronto Research and data analysis support provided by the City of Toronto is gratefully acknowledged. Financial support was provided by the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and the Children’s Aid Foundation. Design support was provided by Peter Grecco. We thank Ann Fitzpatrick, Said Dirie, Sharon Parsaud and Beth Wilson for their assistance with, and review of, the report. Data and mapping support for the transit section of the report from Steve Farber and Jeff Allen, Department of Human Geography, University of Toronto, Scarborough, is gratefully acknowledged. Data support for housing provided by Scott Leon, Wellesley Institute. 2 DIVIDED CITY: Life in Canada’s Child Poverty Capital 2016 Toronto Child and Family Poverty Report Card Contents Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 6 2. Unequal Child and Family Incomes 8 3. Unequal Educational and Recreational Opportunities 14 4. Unequal Access to
  • Community Resources for Hip & Knee Patients

    Community Resources for Hip & Knee Patients

    Community Resources Important: The University Health Network does not recommend one company or person over another and is not responsible for the care and services provided. Please contact the vendors directly to make sure the information is correct or to find out more about their product. This list does not claim to be exhaustive and some facilities/resources may have been inadvertently missed or not up-to-date. Equipment and Assistive Devices HOURS OF LOCATION NAME OPERATION Able Home Health Care 3537 Bathurst St. M-W 9-5 416-789-5551 (N. of Lawrence Ave. S. of Th 9-6 www.ablehomehealthcare.ca Wilson Ave.) F 9-4 Active Lite Mobility 2300 John St., Unit 3 M-F 9-5 905-764-0706 (E. of Don Mills in Thornhill) Sat 10-4 www.activelite.com AgTa Home Health Care 860 Wilson Ave., Suite 102 M-F 9-5 416-630-0737 (W. of Dufferin Ave.) www.agtahomecare.com Amcare Surgical 1584 Bathurst St. M-F 9-7 416-781-4494 (2 blocks N. of St. Clair Ave., Sat 9-5 www.amcare.ca W. side of Bathurst) Baygreen Home Health Care 8 Green Lane M-Th 9:30-6 905-771-0010 (Bayview Ave./ John St. in F 9:30-5 www.baygreen.ca Thornhill) Sat 10:30-3 Healthtime Living Specialties 1340 Danforth Ave. M, Tu, W, F 9:30- 416-693-7676 (E. of Linsmore Cres, near 5:30 www.healthtimelivingspecialties.ca Greenwood Ave.) Th 9:30-7 Sat 10-4 Home Medical Equipment 124 St. Regis Cres.
  • A Study of Car and House Ownership in the Face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE)

    A Study of Car and House Ownership in the Face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE)

    A Study of Car and House Ownership in the face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE) by Elli Maria Papaioannou A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Masters of Applied Science Graduate Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto © Copyright by Elli Maria Papaioannou, 2014 A Study of Car and House Ownership in the face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE) Elli Maria Papaioannou Masters of Applied Science Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto 2014 Abstract This research presents the design, implementation and results of a survey of Car and House Ownership in the face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE). The CHOICE survey is a web-based survey that combines RP and SP components, and was designed to collect information of commuting mode choices, housing and neighbourhood preferences along with vehicle ownership choices of households with cross-regional commuters in the Greater Toronto Area. Investigations of the survey data revealed that for small increases in commuting costs people are willing to change to more efficient cars. As commuting costs reached higher levels, participants chose to relocate their home in order to commute shorter distances. This study provides evidence that vehicle ownership and especially residential location decisions are a complex process and are interrelated. The findings of this study show some of the possible reactions of households in the GTA in the face of extreme increases in transportation costs. ii Acknowledgments This two-year-long journey flew by and I am standing at the end of it today trying to think of all the challenges I faced, all the wonderful and bright people I met, all the things I learned, and all the friends I earned.
  • Child & Family Inequities Score

    Child & Family Inequities Score

    CHILD & FAMILY INEQUITIES SCORE Technical Report The Child & Family Inequities Score provides a neighbourhood-level measure of the socio-economic challenges that children and families experience. The Child & Family Inequities Score is a tool to help explain the variation in socio-economic status across the City of Toronto neighbourhoods. It will help service providers to understand the context of the neighbourhoods and communities that they serve. It will also help policy makers and researchers understand spatial inequities in child and family outcomes. While other composite measures of socio-economic status in the City exist, the Child & Family Inequities Score is unique because it uses indicators that are specific to families with children under the age of 12. The Child & Family Inequities Score is a summary measure derived from indicators which describe inequities experienced by the child and family population in each of Toronto’s 140 neighbourhoods. The Child & Family Inequities Score is comprised of 5 indicators: • Low Income Measure: Percent of families with an after-tax family income that falls below the Low Income Measure. • Parental Unemployment: Percent of families with at least one unemployed parent / caregiver. • Low Parental Education: Percent of families with at least one parent / caregiver that does not have a high school diploma. • No Knowledge of Official Language: Percent of families with no parents who have knowledge of either official language (English or French). 1 • Core Housing Need: Percent of families in core housing need . This report provides technical details on how the Child & Family Inequities Score was created and describes how the resulting score should be interpreted.
  • Every Tree Counts. a Portrait of Toronto's Urban Forest

    Every Tree Counts. a Portrait of Toronto's Urban Forest

    Every Tree Counts A Portrait of Toronto’s Urban Forest Parks, Forestry & Recreation Urban Forestry Parks, Forestry & Recreation Urban Forestry Every Tree Counts A Portrait of Toronto’s Urban Forest Foreword For decades, people flying into Toronto have observed that it is a very green city. Indeed, the sight of Toronto’s tree canopy from the air is impressive. More than 20 years ago, an urban forestry colleague noted that the trees in our parks should, and in many cases do, spill over into the streets like extensions of the City’s parks. Across Toronto and the entire Greater Toronto Area, the urban forest plays a significant role in converting subdivisions into neighbourhoods. Most people have an emotional connection to trees. In cities, they represent one of our remaining links to the natural world. Properly managed urban forests provide multiple services to city residents. Cleaner air and water, cooler temperatures, energy savings and higher property values are among the many benefits. With regular man- agement, these benefits increase every year as trees continue to grow. In 2007,Toronto City Council adopted a plan to significantly expand the City’s forest cover to between 30-40%. Parks, Forestry and Recreation responded with a Forestry Service Plan aimed at managing our existing growing stock, protecting the forest and planting more trees. Strategic management requires a detailed understanding of the state of the City’s forest resource. The need for better information was a main reason to undertake this study and report on the state of Toronto’s tree canopy. Emerging technologies like the i-Tree Eco model and remote sensing techniques used in this forestry study provide managers with new tools and better information to plan and execute the expansion, protection and maintenance of Toronto’s urban forest.
  • Who Will Lead the Liberals? Candidates Line up to Represent the Liberals in Beaches-East York Riding

    Who Will Lead the Liberals? Candidates Line up to Represent the Liberals in Beaches-East York Riding

    ww The East York ROLL CALL n Roller derby skates into town OBSERVER Page 5 Serving our community since 1972 Vol. 43, No. 6 www.torontoobserver.ca Friday, April 25, 2014 Who will lead the Liberals? Candidates line up to represent the Liberals in Beaches-East York riding By NOLAN WHITE The Observer The competition is heating up in Beaches-East York to carry the Liberal banner into the next federal election. Businessman Tom McGee is already holding events in the riding to promote his run at the local riding associa- tion’s nomination. Meanwhile, lawyer Jeff Rybak — also the vice-president of the Harmony Hall Centre for Seniors — has launched a website for his campaign to become the Liberals’ candidate in the riding. And now fellow lawyer Nathaniel Erskine-Smith is pro- moting his intent to capture the riding association’s nod. All with the federal election still a year and a half away. But the local Liberals are laying groundwork now in the hope that next year they’ll recapture Beaches-East York from New Democrat MP Matthew Kellway, who beat incumbent Liberal Maria Minna in 2011. For his part, Smith, 29, says he has had a nearly life-long interest in politics — since his years on student council, back when he attended high school at Malvern Collegiate. He has been a lawyer since 2011, practicing in commercial litigation, but he said he also tries to maintain involvement in public interest matters of the community. In an interview, Smith said that he was born and raised in Beaches-East York.
  • Toronto Data by Neighbourhood

    Toronto Data by Neighbourhood

    Toronto Data by Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Name Median Income Rate per 100,000 people The Beaches 100365 60.28 St.Andrew-Windfields 98420 61.76 Mount Pleasant East 93566 83.46 Greenwood-Coxwell 70574 97.11 East End-Danforth 69026 102.90 Banbury-Don Mills 77547 108.32 Rosedale-Moore Park 106740 109.93 Willowdale East 61920 111.04 Lambton Baby Point 84414 112.71 South Riverdale 76172 114.79 Lawrence Park North 144963 116.38 Newtonbrook East 93566 118.03 Yonge-Eglinton 80896 118.47 Leaside-Bennington 126930 118.85 Steeles 66179 121.84 Danforth-East York 81253 122.24 Danforth 72597 124.15 Bayview Village 67355 126.19 Lansing-Westgate 80384 129.92 Woodbine Corridor 65829 135.56 Milliken 65861 139.24 North Riverdale 89063 142.67 Lawrence Park South 151885 151.53 Pleasant View 70189 151.73 Humewood-Cedarvale 61440 153.15 L'Amoreaux 59445 154.57 Runnymede-Bloor West Village 112128 158.89 Niagara 79441 160.36 Markland Wood 86965 161.08 Bay Street Corridor 48737 166.69 Yonge-St.Clair 80136 167.62 Blake-Jones 64483 168.24 Parkwoods-Donalda 65126 169.52 Princess-Rosethorn 139039 171.93 Bridle Path-Sunnybrook-York Mills 215798 172.67 Playter Estates-Danforth 73216 179.40 Stonegate-Queensway 85138 183.63 Old East York 77824 184.12 Toronto Data by Neighbourhood Palmerston-Little Italy 71168 188.05 High Park-Swansea 82753 188.09 Dovercourt-Wallace Emerson- Junction 64331 191.13 Don Valley Village 63997 192.23 High Park North 68116 194.03 Kingsway South 151552 194.15 Little Portugal 66542 199.24 Agincourt South-Malvern West 61992 206.25 Casa Loma 93022
  • LHIN Sub-Region Development

    LHIN Sub-Region Development

    Opportunity Area About the East Who is the population of focus? Taylor-Massey (Crescent Town) - High needs neighborhood • Population (2011): 269,756 Taylor Massey (Crescent Town) with low access to primary care and high mental health ED • # Neighbourhoods: 21 and inpatient utilization • Split neighbourhoods: To note, • Population for Taylor Massey: Total: 15,595 ; 20+ South Riverdale neighbourhood is yrs.: 15-24: 65+: . It is important to have a consistent primary health care provider. 11,795, 1,760, 1,605 divided between East Toronto and Consistent primary care providers play an essential role as the first points • % Visible Minority (by Total Population in Private of entry into the health care system, providing ongoing prevention and Mid-East Toronto sub-regions Households) (2011): 64.90% • Highest proportion of recent immigrants in East treatment while knowing patients and their history. • 5 designated Neighbourhood Improvement Areas: Toronto: 36.40% . There is a need to re-examine and strengthen our efforts to support (Thorncliffe Park, Victoria Village, Oakridge, Flemingdon • Second highest proportion of people living below low newcomers, especially those whose health risks are compounded by their Park and Taylor-Massey (formally known as Crescent Town)) income measure in East Toronto: 35.50% income level, gender, immigration status, ethno-racial background • Eglinton Ave. to the North, Warden Ave. to the Bounded by: • Top three languages other than English spoken at East, Lake Ontario and Lake Shore Blvd. East to the South home include Bantu languages, Urdu and Tamil Why This Opportunity Was Identified and Leslie St, Jones Ave. Gerrard St. East, and Don Valley Parkway to the West.
  • Using Data from the Early Development Instrument to Inform The

    Using Data from the Early Development Instrument to Inform The

    USING DATA FROM THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT INSTRUMENT TO INFORM THE PROGRAM PLANNING OF ONTARIO EARLY YEARS CENTRES IN TORONTO Jean Varghese, PhD & Nikita Desai, PhD, LLB Toronto Region Data Analysis Coordinators Community Data Group Mothercraft Created by the Toronto Region Data Analysis Coordinators, Community Data Group, Mothercraft 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the Toronto Network of Ontario Early Years Centres for taking the time to share their experiences about working with the Early Development Instrument. We would also like to thank Carmen Grillo, MA (research assistant) for coordinating and conducting the interviews. Created by the Toronto Region Data Analysis Coordinators, Community Data Group, Mothercraft 2 ABSTRACT This document provides a summary of how results from the 2010-2011 cycle of the Early Development Instrument (EDI) were used by Ontario Early Years Centres in Toronto to inform program planning. INTRODUCTION Over many years, a large body of research evidence has stressed the importance of the early years (McCain & Mustard, 1999). Those who work in the early years sector are interested in translating this research into policy and programs that support healthy development of children. The Early Development Instrument, developed by the Offord Centre for Child Studies (OCCS) is a useful tool in monitoring children’s development. Specifically, it is a population- based measure of children’s development at school entry. It comprises five domains: Physical Health and Language and Well-being Cognitive Skills Emotional Maturity Communication Social Competence Skills and General Knowledge There are 104 items on the questionnaire and responses are made on a 3-point scale (see Appendix A).