Point Douglas OUR COMMUNITY Community Area Profile, 2015 Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (WRHA)

OUR HEALTH Point Douglas OUR COMMUNITY Community Area Profile, 2015 Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (WRHA)

Health Status Self-perceived Health PAGE 5 Chronic Disease PAGE 5 Mental Health & Substance Abuse PAGE 5 Mortality PAGE 6 Reproductive & Developmental Health PAGE 7 Sexually Transmitted Infections PAGE 7 $ Health Determinants Education & Employment PAGE 9 Material & Social Deprivation PAGE 9 Income & Affordable Housing PAGE 10 Health Behaviours PAGE 12 Health Care Access, Immunization & Screening PAGE 13 Health & Social Housing PAGE 14

Community Voices PAGE 8

This is a statistical health needs profile Museum. There is a strong presence of First of Point Douglas (2014 pop 47,546)--the Nations in this CA. Thunderbird House is name of a Winnipeg Regional Health located in Point Douglas South and is used Authority community area (CA). The for community meetings and ceremonies. boundaries for this CA can be found on the map (page 11). it is also a CA The community of Point Douglas faces comprised of two neighborhood clusters some important challenges to health and (NC). Point Douglas South contains wellbeing including a lack of affordable six neighborhoods: Dufferin, Dufferin housing and food insecurity. There Industrial, Lord Selkirk Park, North Point are disparities present in important Significantly worse than England average health determinants such as education, No significance can be calculated Douglas, South Point Douglas, and William Rates or Percentages Whyte. Point Douglas North includes employment, income, housing, child care, + River River River River River WPG WPG River Burrows Central, Inkster-Faraday, Luxton, access to culture, and health care. These Indicator Time Period East East East East East MB WPG Worst Best East disparities make it difficult for individuals, Count North East West South Mynarski, Robertson,CA St. Johns, and St. CA Self-Perceived Health ~ 2007-2012 n/a 51% 61% 50% 53% 39% Johns57% Park.58% Median42% household income 69%familiesDistribution and communities of Income to reach Quintiles their full by Census Dissemination Area in Downtown General Mental Health ~~ 2005-2010 n/a 37% 27% 33% 42% 39% of 40%Point 38%Douglas33% North ($45,294) is little 44%health potential. Male Life Expectancy ^ 2007-2011 n/a 78.7 82.3 78.9 78.8 76.2 higher77.5 than78.3 Point71.7 Douglas South ($28,915). 81.8 Female Life Expectancy ^ 2007-2011 n/a 83.8 87.5 82.0 85.6 83.3 82.2 82.7 77.4 85.6Point Douglas also has many strengths Overall, 33% of Point Douglas residents are LOGAN AVE Child Mortality **** 2005-2009 n/a 15.1 33.3 21.3 55.5 9.3and resiliences, and there are excellent in low income status. Premature Mortality ** 2007-2011 n/a 2.8 1.5 2.6 2.9 4.1 3.1 2.9 5.4 1.9programs operating in the community. Potential Yrs of Life Lost ** 2007-2011 n/a 37.7 20.4 30.1 43.4 54.3 51.5 45.8 100.3 29.7 There are active initiatives and networksNOTRE DAME AVE Suicide Death Rate *** 2007-2011 n/a 1.5 Point1.7 Douglas1.5 is 4.3one of the Winnipeg’s 0.8 NOTRE DAME AVE Respiratory Diseases 2011/12 9060 9.2% 6.8% 9.2% 9.0% 11.4% oldest9.5% neighborhoods9.9% 13.2% and is also 8.8%working on the issues of food security and ALEXANDER AVE JAMES AVE Hypertension Incidence * 2011/12 1177 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.5 2.4affordable housing in Point Douglas. The ISABEL ST considered part of Winnipeg’s fabled North CUMBERLAND AVE Hypertension Prevalence 2011/12 19812 24.4% 21.5% 25.1% 24.3% 25.3% 25.6% 24.6% 28.5% 22.5%community is also home to a variety of End. The neighborhood of North Point KING ST PRINCESS ST PORTAGE AVE E Diabetes Incidence * 2009/10-2011/12 1344 0.75 0.53 0.74 0.73 0.94 0.85 0.80 1.25 0.61innovative health care initiatives, programsBANNING ST Douglas boasts two of Winnipeg’s oldest DONALD ST

Diabetes Prevalence 2009/10-2011/12 7074 8.8% 5.8% 9.2% 8.4% 10.9% 10.0% 9.2% 13.2% 7.1% SMITH ST WATER AVE for women, and cultural programs. MAIN ST Heart Disease Incidence * 2007/08-2011/12 1990 0.67 0.57 0.68 0.66 0.84 houses0.67 -0.66 Barber 0.90House and Ross House 0.50 MEMORIAL BLVD Heart Disease Prevalence 2007/08-2011/12 6410 7.9% 6.7% 8.1% 8.0% 9.4% 7.9% 7.9% 9.6% 6.8%

OSBORNE ST N BROADWAY Stroke Event Rates (40+)** 2007-2011 724 2.9 2.1 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.6 4.1 2.1 PORTAGE AVE BROADWAY Dementia Prevalence 2007/08-2011/12 2752 10.3% 7.0% 11.5% 10.4% 10.5% 10.6% 10.9% 12.6% 8.7%

MARYLANDST

SHERBROOKST Osteoporosis Prevalence 2009/10-2011/12 3453 9.7% 9.3% 9.4% 9.8% 8.6% 10.4% 10.3% 12.3% 7.8% PORTAGE AVE Mood & Anxiety Dis. Prev. 2007/08-2011/12 21011 22.7% 19.1% 22.5% 22.3% 23.5% 23.3% 24.4% 27.4% 18.3% Substance Abuse Prev. 2007/08-2011/12 4475 5.1% 3.4% 4.2% 4.8% 6.2% 5.0% 4.9% 9.8% 2.6% Chlamydia Infections **** 2013 333 342.8 n/a 398.3 971.9 236.8 Gonorrhea Infections **** 2013 33 34.9 n/a 77.4 278.7 23.2 Families - 3+ Risk Factors 2011 n/a 21.3% 23.6% 23.9% 51.8% 11.8% Teen Pregnancy (15-19)** 2012/13 106 17.1 18.4 15.5 38.9 5.1 Low Birth Weight Infants 2007/08-2011/12 n/a 5.0% [s] 5.3% 4.5% 6.0% 5.2% 5.8% 7.0% 5.0% Legend Breastfeeding Initiation 2012/13 903 85.5% 82.9% 86.3% 73.1% 94.1% Major road Children not school-ready 2010/11 n/a 15.7% 15.0% 14.8% 24.3% 8.7% Data Source: 2006 census; Population data Current Smokers 2007-2012 n/a 20% [s] 21% 19% 28% 20% 19% 39% 10% Downtown Community Area is based on records of residents registered Binge Drinking^^^ 2007-2012 n/a 24% 23% 30% 21% 17% 24% 23% 38% 22% Income Quintiles with Manitoba Health as 2010 Physically Inactive 2007-2012 n/a 49% 35% 55% 44% 46% 45% 43% 59% 36% Fruit & Veg Consumption^^ 2007-2012 n/a 64% 50% 66% 68% 63% 63% 62% 77% 53% Income Quintiles: Based on Average Overweight & Obesity 2007-2012 n/a 59% [s] 61% 58% 62% 56% 54% 65% 46% U1 (Lowest) Household Income by Census Dissemination Childhood Immunization 2007/08 n/a 75.1% 71.5% 72.4% 58.8% 78.9% Area; Calculated by MCHP for urban area of MB U2 Breast Cancer Screening 2010/11-2011/12 6567 53.4% 58.9% 54.4% 54.4% 43.7% 53.4% 51.4% 36.6% 57.5% Cervical Cancer Screening 2009/10-2011/12 21428 51.8% 60.7% 54.8% 48.1% 51.2% n/a 53.4% 46.1% 59.5% U3 Map: Created by Research and Evaluation Unit, WRHA January, 2013 Inadequate prenatal care 2007/08-2008/09 n/a 6.1% 12.3% 7.7% 19.1% 3.8% U4 Looking for a doctor 2007-2012 n/a 55% [s] 52% 50% 65% 56% 53% 70% 41% Use of Physicians 2011/12 80016 80.9% 82.1% 81.3% 80.6% 79.6% 79.1% 81.2% 77.8% 84.1% U5 (Highest) Hospitalization for ACSC ** 2011/12 384 3.7 1.3 3.3 3.9 5.5 6.3 4.1 7.5 2.3 Inpatient Hospitalizations ** 2011/12 7308 70.4 50.0 64.1 67.4 79.9 87.9 65.4 92.5 59.6 Benzodiazepine Prescribing 2010/11-2011/12 2983 19.9% 15.6% 18.8% 21.2% 16.4% 20.5% 19.7% 23.0% 12.6% ~ Excellent/Very Good ~~ High Level ^ in years ^^ Less than 5 times per day ^^^ Once or more per month ◊ value represents high or low * per 100 ** per 1,000 *** per 10,000 **** per 100,000 (not Best or Worst) **** per 100,000 Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS About this Community Area Profile Prior to the development of community profiles, the Local It also plays an important role in helping stakeholders to Health Involvement Groups (LHIGs) were contacted for their engage with the public in a shared effort to improve the suggestions to help shape community profiles. LHIGs inputs health for everyone. It is possible to build healthy and vibrant were very helpful in developing this profile. The purpose of this communities that empower citizens to achieve their best community area (CA) profile is to provide an overview of socio- physical and mental health. A community profile helps provide demographic, health and wellness data. These data for Point the objective data for building a better community. Douglas will enable the improvement of health status in the Health begins in the community. It is rooted in the community and the quality of life among multiple sectors in circumstances of where individuals live, learn, and work. It is the population. The community profile serves as an important significantly affected by what residents earn as income, and information resource for many organizations and programs who they live and socialize with. associated with health, wellness, and community development. Reading this Profile: Indicators, Data & Graphics In this profile, results for each indicator are presented for Point Findings Douglas overall. Where data has been suppressed due to small In this profile, for selected indicators, differences in time period numbers, it is indicated with an [s]. Blanks indicate where data given in sources such as Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, are not available at the neighborhood cluster (NC) level. 2013, Canadian Community Health Survey, 2013, and Manitoba Charts and Graphics Health, 2014 are reported briefly (for more details see the WRHA CHA 2014 report at wrha.mb.ca/research/cha2014). Most There are a variety of chart styles used is this profile. Dial charts rates are age/sex standardized. describe ratios of 100%, while bar charts describe values from 0 to the highest CA value in Winnipeg. Spine charts are used to Wherever possible we have also made an attempt to compare show groups of several indicators as compared to the value for 2006 and 2011 Census and National Health Survey (NHS) data Winnipeg as a whole, as well as indicating the worst and best to report the socio-demographic findings. value across all CAs. DIAL CHART BAR CHART SPINE CHART

POINT DOUGLAS POINT DOUGLAS PROPORTION VALUE POINT DOUGLAS WPG VALUE VALUE POINT DOUGLAS 37% WINNIPEG 0% 23POINT% POINT DOUGLAS 24.4% Significantly worse thanSignificantly England average worse than England average W DOUGLAS VALUE, BEST No significance can be calculatedNo significance can be calculated AND WORST NC VALUES IF AVAILABLE VALUES Rates or PercentagesNC VALUESRates IFor AVAILABLE Percentages River RiverRiver River River River River River WPG WPG WPG WPG River River Indicator IndicatorTime Period TimeEast Period EastEast East East East EastMB EastWPG MBWorstWPG Worst Best Best East East Count CountNorth East NorthWest SouthEast West South CA CA CA CA Self-Perceived HealthSelf-Perceived ~ 2007-2012 Health ~ 2007-2012n/aAbout51% n/a61%the51%50% At-a-Glance53%61% 39%50% 53%57% Indicator39%58% 57%42% 58% Chart42% 69% 69% General Mental HealthGeneralThe ~~ chart Mental on2005-2010 Health page ~~ 4 provides2005-2010n/a an At-a-Glance37% n/a27% view37%33% of selected42%27% 39%33% count/cases42%40% 39%38% in the40% CA,33% and38% the fourth33% column presents rate/44% 44% Male Life ExpectancyMaleindicators ^ Life Expectancy of2007-2011 health ^ status,2007-2011n/a health78.7 behaviours,n/a82.3 preventive78.778.9 78.882.3 76.278.9 percentage78.877.5 76.278.3 of the77.5 CA71.7 followed78.3 by columns71.7 presenting NCs 81.8 81.8 Female Life ExpectancyFemaleservices, ^ Life andExpectancy2007-2011 health ^ care access.2007-2011n/a The83.8 timen/a87.5 periods83.882.0 stated85.687.5 for 83.382.0 data85.682.2 (if available).83.382.7 82.2 The77.4 worst82.7 performing77.4 NC in the community85.6 85.6 Child Mortality **** Childeach Mortality indicator 2005-2009**** vary depending2005-2009n/a on15.1 the indicatorn/a 15.1 and the data is highlighted33.3 21.3 in 33.3orange.55.5 21.3These columns55.5 are followed by 9.3 9.3 Premature MortalityPrematureavailable ** Mortality to2007-2011 measure ** it. The2007-2011n/a first column2.8 n/a 1.5provides2.82.6 indicator2.91.5 4.12.6 Manitoba2.93.1 4.1and2.9 Winnipeg3.1 5.4 rates/percentages.2.9 5.4 Finally, the table1.9 1.9 Potential Yrs of LifePotentialtitles. Lost ** The Yrs secondof2007-2011 Life Lost column ** 2007-2011 n/apresents37.7 the latestn/a20.4 time37.730.1 period43.420.4 for 54.330.1 shows43.451.5 Winnipeg’s54.345.8 51.5 worst100.3 and45.8 best CAs’100.3 rates/percentages along29.7 29.7 which the data are available, the third column gives exact with graphic illustration of the data. Suicide Death RateSuicide *** Death 2007-2011Rate *** 2007-2011n/a 1.5 n/a 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.7 4.3 1.5 4.3 0.8 0.8 Respiratory DiseasesRespiratory Diseases2011/12 90602011/12 9.2% 90606.8% 9.2% 9.0%6.8% 11.4%9.2% 9.0%9.5% 11.4%9.9% 9.5%13.2%9.9% 13.2% 8.8% 8.8% POINT POINT WORST POINT DOUGLAS VALUE, Hypertension IncidenceHypertension * Incidence2011/12 *TIME 1177DOUGLAS2011/12 2.9DOUGLAS11772.7 2.93.0VALUES 2.7FOR EACH3.0 MB2.73.1 WPG3.03.0 PERFORMING3.1 3.5 3.0 CA 3.5(COLOUR SHOWS BEST PERFORMING2.4 2.4 Hypertension PrevalenceHypertensionINDICATOR Prevalence2011/12PERIOD 198122011/12COUNT24.4%VALUE1981221.5% 24.4%25.1%PD NC (IF24.3%21.5% AVAILABLE)25.3%25.1% VALUE24.3%25.6% VALUE25.3%24.6% 25.6%IN28.5% WINNIPEG24.6% 28.5%SIGNIFICANCE) CA IN WINNIPEG22.5% 22.5% Diabetes IncidenceDiabetes * Incidence2009/10-2011/12 * 2009/10-2011/121344 0.75 13440.53 0.750.74 0.730.53 0.940.74 0.730.85 0.940.80 0.851.25 0.80 1.25 0.61 0.61 Diabetes PrevalenceDiabetes Prevalence2009/10-2011/12 2009/10-2011/127074 8.8% 70745.8% 8.8%9.2% 8.4%5.8% 10.9%9.2% 10.0%8.4% 10.9%9.2% 10.0%13.2%9.2% 13.2% 7.1% 7.1% Heart Disease IncidenceHeart *Disease2007/08-2011/12 Incidence * 2007/08-2011/121990 0.67 19900.57 0.670.68 0.660.57 0.840.68 0.660.67 0.840.66 0.670.90 0.66 RANGE OF0.90 VALUES IN WINNIPEG CAs WINNIPEG’S0.50 0.50 Heart Disease PrevalenceHeart Disease2007/08-2011/12 Prevalence 2007/08-2011/126410 7.9% 64106.7% 7.9%8.1% 8.0%6.7% 9.4%8.1% 8.0%7.9% 9.4%7.9% 7.9%9.6% 7.9% 9.6% 6.8%VALUE 6.8% Stroke Event RatesStroke (40+)** Event Rates2007-2011 (40+)** 2007-2011724 2.9 7242.1 2.93.1 3.02.1 2.73.1 3.02.7 2.72.6 2.7 4.1 2.6 4.1 2.12 2.1 Prepared by Evaluation Platform, December 2015 Dementia PrevalenceDementia Prevalence2007/08-2011/12 2007/08-2011/122752 10.3% 27527.0% 10.3%11.5% 10.4%7.0% 10.5%11.5% 10.4%10.6% 10.5%10.9% 10.6%12.6%10.9% 12.6% 8.7% 8.7% Osteoporosis PrevalenceOsteoporosis2009/10-2011/12 Prevalence 2009/10-2011/123453 9.7% 34539.3% 9.7%9.4% 9.8%9.3% 8.6%9.4% 10.4%9.8% 8.6%10.3% 10.4%12.3%10.3% 12.3% 7.8% 7.8% Mood & Anxiety Dis.Mood Prev. & Anxiety2007/08-2011/12 Dis. Prev. 2007/08-2011/1221011 22.7% 2101119.1% 22.7%22.5% 22.3%19.1% 23.5%22.5% 22.3%23.3% 23.5%24.4% 23.3%27.4%24.4% 27.4% 18.3% 18.3% Substance Abuse Prev.Substance Abuse2007/08-2011/12 Prev. 2007/08-2011/124475 5.1% 44753.4% 5.1%4.2% 4.8%3.4% 6.2%4.2% 4.8%5.0% 6.2%4.9% 5.0%9.8% 4.9% 9.8% 2.6% 2.6% Chlamydia InfectionsChlamydia **** Infections2013 **** 3332013 342.8 333 342.8 n/a 398.3 n/a971.9398.3 971.9 236.8 236.8 Gonorrhea InfectionsGonorrhea **** Infections2013 **** 332013 34.9 33 34.9 n/a 77.4 n/a278.7 77.4 278.7 23.2 23.2 Families - 3+ Risk FactorsFamilies - 3+ Risk2011 Factors n/a2011 21.3% n/a 21.3% 23.6% 23.9% 23.6%51.8%23.9% 51.8% 11.8% 11.8% Teen Pregnancy (15-19)**Teen Pregnancy2012/13 (15-19)** 1062012/13 17.1 106 17.1 18.4 15.5 18.438.9 15.5 38.9 5.1 5.1 Low Birth Weight InfantsLow Birth Weight2007/08-2011/12 Infants 2007/08-2011/12n/a 5.0% n/a[s] 5.0%5.3% 4.5%[s] 6.0%5.3% 4.5%5.2% 6.0%5.8% 5.2%7.0% 5.8% 7.0% 5.0% 5.0% Breastfeeding InitiationBreastfeeding Initiation2012/13 9032012/1385.5% 903 85.5% 82.9% 86.3% 82.9%73.1%86.3% 73.1% 94.1% 94.1% Children not school-readyChildren not school-ready2010/11 n/a2010/1115.7% n/a 15.7% 15.0% 14.8% 15.0%24.3%14.8% 24.3% 8.7% 8.7% Current Smokers Current Smokers2007-2012 2007-2012n/a 20% n/a[s] 20%21% 19%[s] 28%21% 19%20% 28%19% 20%39% 19% 39% 10% 10% Binge Drinking^^^ Binge Drinking^^^2007-2012 2007-2012n/a 24% n/a23% 24%30% 21%23% 17%30% 21%24% 17%23% 24%38% 23% 38% 22% 22% Physically Inactive Physically Inactive2007-2012 2007-2012n/a 49% n/a35% 49%55% 44%35% 46%55% 44%45% 46%43% 45%59% 43% 59% 36% 36% Fruit & Veg Consumption^^Fruit & Veg Consumption^^2007-2012 2007-2012n/a 64% n/a50% 64%66% 68%50% 63%66% 68%63% 63%62% 63%77% 62% 77% 53% 53% Overweight & ObesityOverweight & Obesity2007-2012 2007-2012n/a 59% n/a[s] 59%61% 58%[s] 62%61% 58%56% 62%54% 56%65% 54% 65% 46% 46% Childhood ImmunizationChildhood Immunization2007/08 n/a2007/0875.1% n/a 75.1% 71.5% 72.4% 71.5%58.8%72.4% 58.8% 78.9% 78.9% Breast Cancer ScreeningBreast Cancer2010/11-2011/12 Screening 2010/11-2011/126567 53.4% 656758.9% 53.4%54.4% 54.4%58.9% 43.7%54.4% 54.4%53.4% 43.7%51.4% 53.4%36.6%51.4% 36.6% 57.5% 57.5% Cervical Cancer ScreeningCervical Cancer2009/10-2011/12 Screening 2009/10-2011/1221428 51.8% 2142860.7% 51.8%54.8% 48.1%60.7% 51.2%54.8% 48.1%n/a 51.2%53.4% n/a46.1%53.4% 46.1% 59.5% 59.5% Inadequate prenatalInadequate care 2007/08-2008/09prenatal care 2007/08-2008/09n/a 6.1% n/a 6.1% 12.3% 7.7% 12.3%19.1%7.7% 19.1% 3.8% 3.8% Looking for a doctorLooking for a doctor2007-2012 2007-2012n/a 55% n/a[s] 55%52% 50%[s] 65%52% 50%56% 65%53% 56%70% 53% 70% 41% 41% Use of Physicians Use of Physicians2011/12 800162011/1280.9% 8001682.1% 80.9%81.3% 80.6%82.1% 79.6%81.3% 80.6%79.1% 79.6%81.2% 79.1%77.8%81.2% 77.8% 84.1% 84.1% Hospitalization for ACSCHospitalization ** for2011/12 ACSC ** 3842011/12 3.7 3841.3 3.73.3 3.91.3 5.53.3 3.96.3 5.54.1 6.3 7.5 4.1 7.5 2.3 2.3 Inpatient HospitalizationsInpatient ** Hospitalizations2011/12 ** 73082011/12 70.4 730850.0 70.464.1 67.450.0 79.964.1 67.487.9 79.965.4 87.992.5 65.4 92.5 59.6 59.6 Benzodiazepine PrescribingBenzodiazepine2010/11-2011/12 Prescribing 2010/11-2011/122983 19.9% 298315.6% 19.9%18.8% 21.2%15.6% 16.4%18.8% 21.2%20.5% 16.4%19.7% 20.5%23.0%19.7% 23.0% 12.6% 12.6% ~ Excellent/Very Good~ Excellent/Very~~ High Good Level ~~ High Level ^ in years ^ in years ^^ Less than 5 times^^ per Less day than 5 times per^^^ day Once or more per^^^ month Once or more per month ◊ value represents ◊high value or lowrepresents high or low * per 100 * per 100 ** per 1,000 ** per 1,000*** per 10,000 *** ****per per10,000 100,000 **** per 100,000 (not Best or Worst) (not Best or Worst) **** per 100,000 **** per 100,000 OUR HEALTH Point Douglas (10) Community Profile OUR COMMUNITY

Point Douglas is comprised of two neighborhood clusters (NCs), Point Douglas North (10A) and Point Douglas South (10B).

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AREA: 19.9 KM2 POPULATION (2014): 47,546 10A Socio-demographic factors (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, primary POPULATION (2009): 42,561 10B language) and socioeconomic status (e.g., income, education, 10A: Point Douglas North employment) can influence health outcomes. The age 10B: Point Douglas South distribution of a community impacts the supports and services Note: Map of Point Douglas on page 11 needed in a community. For example, young families and older adults benefit from affordable housing and balanced working hours. Different population groups, varying in income and education levels often have different challenges in maintaining or improving their health. For instance, Indigenous and vulnerable persons are groups which, in general, face barriers to good health and access to health services. HIGHLIGHTS

Source: MH, 2014 ••The population of this community is steadily increasing from AGE & GENDER FEMALES MALES 0-9 years 3,615 (15%) 3,789 (16%) 42,561 in June 2009 to 47,546 in 2014 (12% increase). 10-19 years 3,454 (15%) 3,558 (15%) ••The majority (79%) of residents speak English at home; 13% 20-39 years 6,838 (29%) 6,843 (28%) speak a non-official language at home and the remaining 7% 40-64 years 7,025 (30%) 7,894 (33%) speak both (English and a non-official language). 65-74 years 1,262 (5%) 1,182 (5%) 75+ years 1,341 (6%) 745 (3%) ••The percentage of residents identifying as Aboriginal was Source: 2011 Census / National Household Survey ETHNICITY 29.0% in 2006 and it has decreased by 0.5% in 2011. The Aboriginal 11,140 (28%) percentage of visible minority residents has increased Recent Immigrants (2006-2011) 3,810 (10%) from 19.9% to 26.5%. The reported percentage of new Visible Minorities 10,385 (27%) immigrants during the period of 2006-2011 was 9.7%. EDUCATION ••The unemployment rate has increased from 8.3% in 2006 to No certificate/diploma/degree (15+ population) 36% 9.5% in 2011. High school diploma or equivalent (15+ population) 29% Postsecondary certificate, diploma or degree (15+ pop.) 36% ••Attendees at the community engagement event identified the main issues of concern as: low level of education, poor

EMPLOYMENT job opportunities and lack of support to healthy food, stable Participation rate (in labour force/15+ population) 61.2% housing, walk-in doctors, day care spaces and transportation Employment rate (employed/15+ population) 55.4% funds from employment and income assistance (EIA). Unemployment rate (unemployed, in labour force) 9.5% ••Attendees identified the following community strengths: INCOME improved affordable housing, health education and supports Income under $19,999 12,665 (46%) delivered in schools, food security programs, access to $20,000-$59,999 13,625 (49%) healthcare, access to social programs, and good early $60,000-$99,999 1,435 (5%) childhood education programs. $100,000-$124,999 70 (0.3%) $125,000+ 70 (0.3%) ••The percentages of residents who received treatment for total respiratory diseases and ischemic heart disease have LONE-PARENT FAMILIES significantly decreased over time. Female-led parent 2,820 (81%) Male-led parent 685 (20%) ••The percentages of residents who received treatment for 65+ hypertension, diabetes, and mood and anxiety disorders Male, living alone 525 (31%) have significantly increased over time. Female, living alone 1,020 (43%) ••Stroke event rate has significantly increased over time. 2013 MCHP, Source: LIVING IN PERSONAL CARE HOME 11% ••Almost one third (29.4%) of Point Douglas residents did not return the National Household Survey (NHS).

3 Prepared by Evaluation Platform, December 2015 Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS

Point Douglas At-a-Glance Significantly worse than England average BETTER THAN WPG WORSE THAN WPG SIMILAR TO WPG SIGNIFICANCE COULD NOT BE CALCULATED No significance can be calculated Rates or Percentages Point Point Point WPG WPG Point Indicator Time Period Douglas Douglas Douglas MB WPG Worst Best Douglas Count North South CA WPG CA Self-Perceived Health ~ 2007-2012 n/a 42% 44% 23% 57% 58% 42% 69% General Mental Health ~~ 2005-2010 n/a 39% 39% 39% 40% 38% 33% 44% Male Life Expectancy ^ 2007-2011 n/a 71.7 75.3 66.7 77.5 78.3 71.7 81.8 Female Life Expectancy ^ 2007-2011 n/a 77.4 82.6 70.9 82.2 82.7 77.4 85.6 Child Mortality **** 2005-2009 n/a 55.5 33.3 21.3 55.5 9.3 Premature Mortality ** 2007-2011 n/a 5.4 3.9 8.3 3.1 2.9 5.4 1.9 Potential Yrs of Life Lost ** 2007-2011 n/a 100.3 59.3 175.8 51.5 45.8 100.3 29.7 Suicide Death Rate *** 2007-2011 n/a 4.3 1.7 1.5 4.3 0.8 Respiratory Diseases 2011/12 5979 13.2% 12.3% 15.0% 9.5% 9.9% 13.2% 8.8% Hypertension Incidence * 2011/12 492 3.4 3.2 3.8 3.1 3.0 3.5 2.4

HEALTH STATUS Hypertension Prevalence 2011/12 7670 27.3% 27.1% 27.7% 25.6% 24.6% 28.5% 22.5% Diabetes Incidence * 2009/10-2011/12 744 1.25 1.13 1.50 0.85 0.80 1.25 0.61 Diabetes Prevalence 2009/10-2011/12 3868 13.2% 11.9% 15.8% 10.0% 9.2% 13.2% 7.1% Heart Disease Incidence * 2007/08-2011/12 896 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.67 0.66 0.90 0.50 Heart Disease Prevalence 2007/08-2011/12 2561 9.6% 9.3% 10.9% 7.9% 7.9% 9.6% 6.8% Stroke Event Rates (40+)** 2007-2011 346 4.1 3.6 5.4 2.7 2.6 4.1 2.1 Dementia Prevalence 2007/08-2011/12 1088 12.6% 9.0% 19.3% 10.6% 10.9% 12.6% 8.7% Osteoporosis Prevalence 2009/10-2011/12 1121 10.1% 8.8% 12.3% 10.4% 10.3% 12.3% 7.8% Mood & Anxiety Dis. Prev. 2007/08-2011/12 10434 27.4% 24.0% 32.0% 23.3% 24.4% 27.4% 18.3% Substance Abuse Prev. 2007/08-2011/12 3960 9.8% 6.5% 14.1% 5.0% 4.9% 9.8% 2.6% Chlamydia Infections **** 2013 509 971.9 n/a 398.3 971.9 236.8 Gonorrhea Infections **** 2013 147 278.7 n/a 77.4 278.7 23.2 Families - 3+ Risk Factors1 2011 n/a 51.8% 23.6% 23.9% 51.8% 11.8% Teen Pregnancy (15-19)** 2012/13 138 38.9 18.4 15.5 38.9 5.1 Low Birth Weight Infants 2007/08-2011/12 n/a 7.0% 6.9% 7.2% 5.2% 5.8% 7.0% 5.0% Breastfeeding Initiation 2012/13 565 73.1% 82.9% 86.3% 73.1% 94.1% Children not school-ready 2 2010/11 n/a 24.3% 15.0% 14.8% 24.3% 8.7% BEHAVIOURS Current Smokers 2007-2012 n/a 39% 40% 34% 20% 19% 39% 10% Binge Drinking^^^ 2007-2012 n/a 30% 32% [s] 24% 23% 38% 22% Physically Inactive 2007-2012 n/a 59% 59% 58% 45% 43% 59% 36% Fruit & Veg Consumption^^ 2007-2012 n/a 77% 76% 77% 63% 62% 77% 53% Overweight & Obesity 2007-2012 n/a 65% 66% 53% 56% 54% 65% 46% Childhood Immunization 2007/08 n/a 58.8% 71.5% 72.4% 58.8% 78.9% HEALTH CARE ACCESS Breast Cancer Screening 2010/11-2011/12 1512 36.6% 39.3% 30.3% 53.4% 51.4% 36.6% 57.5% Cervical Cancer Screening 2009/10-2011/12 7771 46.1% 48.2% 41.8% n/a 53.4% 46.1% 59.5% Inadequate prenatal care 2007/08-2008/09 n/a 19.1% 12.3% 7.7% 19.1% 3.8% Looking for a doctor 2007-2012 n/a 57% 69% [s] 56% 53% 70% 41% Use of Physicians 2011/12 36685 80.2% 80.3% 80.5% 79.1% 81.2% 77.8% 84.1% Hospitalization for ACSC ** 2011/12 326 7.5 4.9 11.9 6.3 4.1 7.5 2.3 Inpatient Hospitalizations ** 2011/12 3967 92.5 69.8 118.9 87.9 65.4 92.5 59.6 Benzodiazepine Prescribing 2010/11-2011/12 733 17.4% 17.5% 17.0% 20.5% 19.7% 23.0% 12.6% ~~ ExcellentExcellent/Very / Very Good Good ~~~~ High LevelLevel ^^ in years ^^^^ Less0-4 times than 5 per times day per day ^^^ once or more per month ◊ value represents high or low * per 100 person yrs. ** per 1,000 *** per 10,000 **** per 100,000 1* Risk per 100factors for maternal health** per 1,000 and child development *** per 10,000 **** per 100,000 (not Best or Worst) 2**** Children per 100,000 “not ready for school” in two or more domains of “Early Development Instrument” 4 Prepared by Evaluation Platform, December 2015 Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS How Healthy is the Community?

Self-perceived Health

General health is defined as ‘not only the absence of disease Self-Perceived Health or injury but also physical, mental, and social wellbeing’. Self- Very Good / Excellent perceived health and general mental health are important factors 2007-2012 POINT DOUGLAS 42% for the well-being of individuals in the community. 0% WORST CA 42% WPG 58% BEST CA 69% FINDINGS PD NORTH 44% PD SOUTH 23% ••Compared to Winnipeg (58%), a much lower proportion of Point Douglas residents (42%) reported “excellent” or “very good” self-perceived health. General Mental Health (SF-36) ••Compared to Winnipeg (38%), a similar proportion of Point High Level $ Douglas residents (39%) reported “high level” of general 2005-2010 POINT DOUGLAS 39% mental health.

0% WORST CA 33% WPG 38% BEST CA 44% ••Point Douglas North and South residents reported similar PD NORTH 39% “high level” of general mental health (39%). + PD SOUTH 39% ••44% of Point Douglas North residents reported “excellent” or “very good” self-perceived health, while only 23% of Point Douglas South residents reported the same.

Chronic Disease$ Chronic disease is a growing and global problem. It not only burdens individuals suffering from them WPG WORSE BETTER but also burdens families, communities, and the + health care system. Stroke PD 4.1/1,000 2007-2011 S 4.1 N 2.1 2.6 FINDINGS Respiratory ••Stroke event rate has significantly increased over Diseases PD13.2% time (from 3.1 cases per 1,000 residents aged 40+ 2011/12 S 13.2% N 8.8% 9.9% in 2002-2006 to 4.1 in 2007-2011). ••The percentages of Point Douglas residents Diabetes PD13.2% 2009/10- S 13.2% N 7.1% who received treatment for total respiratory 2011/12 9.2% diseases and ischemic heart disease have significantly decreased over time. Heart Disease PD 9.6% 2007/08-2011/12 S 9.6% N 6.8% ••The percentages of Point Douglas residents 7.9% who received treatment for hypertension and diabetes have significantly increased over Hypertension PD 27.3% 2011/12 28.5% S N 22.5% time. The increase in diabetes prevalence is 24.6% likely related to earlier detection, treatment, awareness, and self care of residents with Dementia PD12.6% 2007/08-2011/12 S 12.6% N 8.7% diabetes. 10.9% ••The percentage of Point Douglas residents Osteoporosis PD10.1% aged 55+ treated for dementia has somewhat 2009/10-2011/12 S 12.3% N 7.8% 10.3% remained the same over time (12.6% in 2007/08- 2011/12). q =Point Douglas N=PD North S=PD South p=Wpg ••The percentage of Point Douglas residents who received treatment for osteoporosis has significantly decreased over time (from 11.1% in 2004/05-2006/07 to 10.1% in 2009/10- 5 Prepared by Evaluation Platform, December 2015 2011/12). Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS Mental Health & Substance Abuse

Mood & Anxiety Disorders Mental and substance disorders are significant contributors to 2007/08-2011/12 disease burden in communities. These are substantial disorders POINT DOUGLAS 27% that impact individuals thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to 0% BEST CA 18% WPG 24% WORST CA 27% recognize reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life. PD NORTH 24% PD SOUTH 32% FINDINGS Substance Abuse $ ••The percentage of Point Douglas residents who received 2007/08-2011/12 treatment for mood and anxiety disorders has significantly POINT DOUGLAS 9.8% increased over time (from 25.7% in 2002/03-2006/07 to 27.4% in 2007/08-2011/12). 0% BEST CA 2.6% WPG 4.9% WORST CA 9.8% + PD NORTH 6.5% ••The percentage of Point Douglas residents who received PD SOUTH 14.1% treatment for substance abuse has increased slightly over time (from 9.6% in 2002/03-2006/07 to 9.8% in 2007/08- 2011/12).

Life Expectancy & Death

Community health is influenced by life expectancy and WPG mortality. Life expectancy is the average number of years that WORSE BETTER is likely to be lived by a group of individuals exposed to the same mortality conditions until they die. People living longer Suicide PD 4.3/10,000 2007-2011 4.3 0.8 contribute to the overall health in the community. Nonetheless, 1.5 increasing life expectancy has an impact on support services Potential Years required by aging population. For example, home care and of Life Lost PD 100.3YRS personal care homes. 2007-2011 S 100.3 N 29.7 45.8 Potential years of life lost (PYLL) is an important health Child indicator of a community. PYLL estimates the average years a Mortality PD 55.5/100,000 2005-2009 55.5 9.3 person would have lived if he/she had not died prematurely. $ 21.3 Acute and chronic disease conditions and injuries (intentional or Premature unintentional) result in premature death of individuals. One of Mortality PD 5.4/1,000 the biggest challenges to achieving healthy communities is to 2007-2011 S 5.4 N 1.9 2.9 prevent and manage disease conditions and injuries–in effect, + lowering the premature death rate. Male LE* PD 71.7YRS 2007-2011 S 71.7 N 81.8 FINDINGS 78.3 ••Suicide death rate has increased over time (from 3.3 per 1,000 Female LE* PD 77.4YRS residents aged 10+ in 2002-2006 to 4.3 in 2007-2011). 2007-2011 S 77.4 N 85.6 82.7 ••Potential years of life lost (PYLL) has decreased slightly over time in Point Douglas (from 107.9 years per 1,000 residents in q =Point Douglas N=PD North S=PD South p=Wpg 2002-2006 to 100.3 years in 2007-2011). * Life Expectancy ••Child mortality rate has decreased over time in Point Douglas (from 59.7 per 100,000 children aged 1-19 in 2000-2004 to 55.5 in 2005-2009). Winnipeg Regional Health Authority COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSESSMENT 2014 ••Premature mortality rate (PMR) has remained somewhat the same over time (5.4 per 1,000 residents in 2007-2011). ••Male life expectancy at birth has remained the same over time (71.7 years in 2007-2011). Complete report available at wrha.mb.ca/research/ ••Female life expectancy at birth has increased over time (from cha2014. 76.1 years in 2002-2006 to 77.4 years in 2007-2011). 6 Prepared by Evaluation Platform, December 2015 Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS

Reproductive & Developmental Health

Reproductive and developmental health indicators have an Low Birth Weight impact on safe motherhood, child survival, and reduction of maternal and child morbidity and/or mortality. Socio-economic 2007/08-2011/12 POINT DOUGLAS 7.0% factors influence reproductive health, teen pregnancies, and teen births. 0% BEST CA 5.0% WPG 5.8% WORST CA 7.0% PD NORTH 6.9% FINDINGS PD SOUTH 7.2% $ ••The percentage of low birth-weight infants has increased slightly over time in Point Douglas (from 6.4 per 100 live infants per year in 2002/03-2006/07 to 7.0% in 2007/08- 2011/12). Families+ with 3 or more risk factors ••The percentage of mothers with newborns who screened 2011 positive for 3 or more risk factors for maternal health and POINT DOUGLAS 52% child’s development has decreased slightly over time in Point Douglas (from 54.9% in 2003 to 51.8% in 2011). 0% BEST CA 12% WPG 24% WORST CA 52% ••Teen pregnancy rate has decreased over time (from 52.6 per 1,000 females aged 15-19 in 2010/11 to 38.9 in 2012/13). Teen Pregnancy 2012/13 POINT DOUGLAS /1,000 38.9 Early childhood development has an impact on the emotional and physical health of individuals in their later years. Research 0 BEST CA 5.1 WPG 15.5 WORST CA 38.9 indicates that children who begin school and are ready to learn will have future success in learning throughout their lives. Children Not Ready Early development Instrument (EDI) scores are used to assess for School if children are ready or not ready for school. EDI results are a 2010/11 reflection of the strengths and needs of children in communities. POINT DOUGLAS 24.3% FINDINGS 0% BEST CA 8.7% WPG 14.8% WORST CA 24.3% ••The percentage of children “not ready for school” in two or more domains of EDI has somewhat increased (from 20% to 24%) over the years (2005/06-2010/11) in Point Douglas. And after combining data from all four years, the percentage of children who were “not ready for school” (21%) has been significantly higher than Manitoba’s baseline percentage $ (14%). + Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) Chlamydia STIs have serious outcomes. Several STIs may not show early 2013 symptoms. As a result, there are greater risks of passing the POINT DOUGLAS /100,000 972 infection to others. However, STIs can be treated and individuals can be cured. 0 BEST CA 237 WPG 398 WORST CA 972 FINDINGS ••Compared to the Winnipeg’s rate of 398.3 per 100,000 in Gonorrhea 2013, Point Douglas’s chlamydia infection rate of 971.9 has 2013 POINT DOUGLAS 279/100,000 been worse. Similarly, Point Douglas’s gonorrhea infection rate of 278.7 per 100,000 in 2013 has also been worse than BEST CA 23 WPG 77 WORST CA 279 Winnipeg’s at 77.

7 Prepared by Evaluation Platform, December 2015 Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS What Determines Health in the Community? Community engagement session(s) were undertaken in order The majority of participants’ views and discussions were around to meet with the community members and various agency social determinants of health and health equity—factors that staff to look behind the numbers to understand health in impact the health in the community. Participants’ views are each community. Thanks to the Community Facilitators who strongly supported by the literature. organized these sessions for Evaluation Platform member(s) Several factors influence the health and well-being of a to lead. Broadly, the following questions were posed to community. Some factors increase the risk of ill health and participating members. some decrease its risk. Mostly these factors are interrelated What do you think impacts/affects the health of people in and contribute towards both positive and negative impacts on your community? the community’s health. However, some of these factors are modifiable and, therefore, can improve the health and well- What is it you would like others (in & outside the being of a community. community) to know about the health of those who live in Point Douglas community area. Since several factors are interrelated, participants’ views often included more than one factor when they were explaining how the community’s health and well-being is impacted. Participant voices are presented below.

Community Voices

Education, Employment Early Childhood Development & Income • People need to be taught good • Several people in the community parenting before having more kids. are poor, job opportunities are Access to Care/Programs • There is a negative influence of limited and EIA administration is very partner on drinking and smoking humiliating. • Health interventions often come too during pregnancy. late for residents. • Recreation options require money • CFS all too often breaks up families. and that is not considered under • Programs should be proactive and EIA. EIA does not provide funds for engaging. • There is not enough ECD program to transportation. Bus is a life line for this bring families together to decrease • There is lack of continuity of care. community which is limited. isolation and improve mental health. Some residents are sent home from • All these factors lead to high stress in ER way too soon and sometime health • There is also high level of domestic individuals and poor health outcomes. interventions are offered late in illness violence. process. • While there some great food security • Community needs more day care programs in the area, access to • This community lacks primary care centers and more child care spots. affordable and healthy food continues and walk-in doctors. There are not many childhood to be a challenge in Point Douglas. supports in walkable distance. • Sometimes it is difficult to • This issue is rooted in income levels communicate with homecare. Social Belonging and has serious health effects. • Dental care is also not that great. • There is a stay and play program for families with young children. This Housing • Need trauma counselor as in program helps bring families together, this community there are many • There is some good housing but not decrease isolation, and improve intergenerational trauma survivors. everyone is able to afford them. mental health. • People on social assistance have to • Tobacco is sacred to First Nations, but either live in poor social housing or this population needs to learn that rentals that are hideous. their bodies are sacred too • Housing programs in Point Douglas are making a positive difference. • While there are still serious housing issues, progress is being made

8 Prepared by Evaluation Platform, December 2015 Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS What Determines Health in the Community? The following sections discuss some of these factors which have been categorized into socio-economic determinants, health behaviors, and health care access.

Education$ & Employment No certificate, degree, or diploma Education impacts an individual’s job opportunities and income 15+ Population level. It also helps individuals to better understand their health 2011 POINT DOUGLAS 36% options and make informed choices about health. People with + higher education tend to be healthier than those with less formal 0% BEST CA 13% WPG 20% WORST CA 36% education. Offering to partner with other organizations to PD NORTH 31% deliver informal education (e.g. skills building workshops) could PD SOUTH 48% contribute towards improved individual and community health. Participation in Labour Force FINDINGS 15+ population by labour force status 2011 POINT DOUGLAS 61% ••The percentage of individuals in Point Douglas with no certificate, diploma or degree has decreased from 39.6% in 0% WORST CA 61% WPG 68% BEST CA 72% 2006 to 35.9% in 2011. PD NORTH 67% PD SOUTH 49 % ••The percentage of individuals in Point Douglas having a high school certificate or equivalent was 27.0% in 2006 and has Employment Rate increased by 1.6% in 2011. 15+ population by labour force status Employment provides income to individuals. It not only 2011 POINT DOUGLAS 55% helps improve individuals’ lives but also helps build stronger 0% WORST CA 55% WPG 64% BEST CA 68% communities. The participation rate refers to the number of PD NORTH 61% people who are either employed or actively looking for work. PD SOUTH 42% FINDINGS Unemployment Rate ••The labor force participation rate in Point Douglas has 15+ Population 2011 POINT DOUGLAS9.5% somewhat remained the same over time (61%). ••The employment rate was 56.0% in 2006 and has decreased by 0% BEST CA 4.7% WPG 5.9% WORST CA 9.5% 0.6% in 2011. PD NORTH 7.7% PD SOUTH 15.0% ••The unemployment rate has increased from 8.3% in 2006 to 9.5% in 2011. Material and Social Deprivation

Better health is also influenced by social support and connectedness that Material Deprivation$ (2006) an individual has with their family, friends, and community. Community POINT DOUGLAS connectedness reflects our commitment to shared resources and systems. 0.63 Hence having community centers and programs, transportation system, 3 BETTER WPG WORSE 4 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 and social safety nets could enhance the health of individuals living in the + community. PD NORTH 0.28 PD SOUTH 1.23 Material deprivation higher than zero means that the community has a higher proportion of lower average household income, higher unemployment rate, and a higher proportion of individuals without high Social Deprivation (2006) school graduation. Social deprivation higher than zero means that the POINT DOUGLAS 0.68 community has a higher proportion of individuals who are separated, divorced, or widowed, living alone and a higher proportion of the 3 BETTER WPG WORSE 4 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 population that has moved at least once in the past five years.

PD NORTH 0.45 FINDINGS PD SOUTH 1.06 ••Point Douglas has a material deprivation score of 0.63 (higher than zero = worse) and social deprivation score of 0.68 (higher than zero = worse). Material and social deprivation have been significantly worse than 9 Prepared by Evaluation Platform, December 2015 Manitoba scores (-0.02; 0.02). Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS Map 2.1.C Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (the Region) Community Income Distributions (Based on average household income by census dissemination area)

321 PROVINCIAL RD

L MILLER RD A

I ST

V S

O IP

P LL I

MCPH GR ASS MERE D RD R $ Income & Affordable Housing H

WY S HILL IGHW PERIMETER HWY PERIMET H HODD T ON INOT BIRD D E S S T A R R HW

RD Y

E Y 59

N MAIN I HENDER L Distribution of Income Quintiels by Census Dissemination Area in Point Douglas

P VD LE ILA CHIEF PEGUIS TR BL E AVE MCIVOR ER AIL T AVE OAK PO S SP INKSTER RINGFIELD RD MODI N GI INT BLV AI M D M CLEO LA H D WY KI AVE T MB S ERLY N MCPHILLIPS ST T AVE O LO S T GA S N AV ER E TT MOLS Income plays a major role in determining the health of DUBLIN AVE LT INKSTER BLVD Y WA SA RD + ON RD LI FW NA T T E IRN MCPHILLIPS ST T AVE S

GE S ISRA

D ST ANE P Y

UR REGENT AVE W PANDORA AVE E INKSTER BLVD individuals and families in the community. For example, UR ST AY NESS AVE NESS AV NT DUGALD RD E E AVE BROADW ST AGE AV TAGE BANNING GOULET MARION ST PORT CE POR ERBROOK ACADEMY RD SH WY income influences access to affordable housing, healthy D H ROBLIN BLV CORYDON ESSIS RD AVE A PL VD DUNKI MAIN ST GRANT AVE GRANT L AVE MBIN B FERMOR AVE

PE N RK choices, and lowered stress levels for individuals and

2006 Census TO DR LKES AVE S WI BISHOP GRANDIN BLVD

Y D E BLV K DIN families. Those who are unemployed or have lower GRAN Point Douglas P Legend: MAIN ST VD ST BL BISHO REDWOOD AVE AY Y VR ANNE W Y LI HW CGIL H Major road M ETER REDWOOD BRIDGE A ' IM S RD R income, experience the poorest health and well-being. N PE I

PERIMETER HW B Y SALTER ST M R HW Rivers T ETE PE

S M PERI PRAIRIE GROVE RD

Y RD E Therefore, the range of incomes within the community H L 'S Community Areas A

R RY L E L V MA A A T M S Neighborhood Clusters W A DR needs to be considered when designing community

SLAW REBCHUK BRIDGE DISRAELI BRIDGE H NAIRN AVE IGHW Income Quintiles AY programs and services to improve access for all. 75 DISRAELI FWY LowestU1 (Lowest) income quintile DISRAELI FWY U2

Legend U3 FINDINGS

U4 Source: 2006 Census; Population data is based on records of residents registered with Manitoba Health as 2010 Major road Income Quintiles: Based on Average Household Income by Census Dissemination Area; Calculated by MCHP for urban area of MB Map: Created by Research and Evaluation Unit, WRHA January, 2013 Point DouglasHighestU5 (Highest Community) income Area quintile ••Median individual income of Point Douglas has Income Quintiles Income Quintles: Based on Average Household increased from $19,248 in 2005 to $22,157 in 2010. MCHP10 Income by Census Dissemination U1 (Lowest) Area; Calculated byMEDIAN MCHP for urban area of MBMEDIAN Similarly, median household income has increased U2 Map: Created HOUSEHOLDby Research and Evaluation Unit,INDIVIDUAL from $33,831 to $39,614. 22 COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSESSMENT 2014 U3 WRHA January, 2013 2011 NHS U4POINT (Highest) DOUGLAS $39,614 $22,157 ••Average individual income of Point Douglas has POINT DOUGLAS NORTH $45,294 $24,343 increased from $22,523 in 2005 to $26,211 in 2010. POINT DOUGLAS SOUTH $28,915 $18,071 Similarly, average household income has increased from $40,703 to $48,468. ••In the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) report, low-income statistics are presented based on the after- Low income residents tax low-income measure (LIM-AT). This measure is not 2011 POINT DOUGLAS related to the low-income cut-offs (LICO) presented in 33% the 2006 Census and therefore prevalence rates of low 0% BEST CA 8% WPG 16% WORST CA 33% income are not comparable. PD NORTH 26% PD SOUTH 49%

Renting, spending more than Affordable housing is yet another important factor that 30% of income on housing influences health. People in households that spend 30% 2011 or more of total household income on shelter expenses POINT DOUGLAS 45% are considered to be having ‘housing affordability’ problems. Thus, these people are constrained from 0% BEST CA 31% WPG 37% WORST CA 45% making healthier choices and could experience physical POINT DOUGLAS NORTH 0% PD NORTH 46% PD SOUTH 44% and mental health problems. FINDINGS ••The percentage of tenant households spending 30% or more of household total income on shelter costs Owned, spending more than in Point Douglas has increased from 40.2% in 2006 to 30% of income on housing 45.0% in 2011. 2011 POINT DOUGLAS 17% ••The percentage of owner households spending 30% or more of household total income on shelter costs 0% BEST CA 12% WPG 14% WORST CA 18% has increased from 15.8% in 2006 to 16.8% in 2011. PD NORTH 17% PD SOUTH 14%

10 Prepared by Evaluation Platform, December 2015 West Midlands Public Health Observatory Spine Chart Tool v4

Key: England Key:

Significantly better than England average Not significantly different from England average Significantly worse than England average Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS No significance can be calculated At-a-Glance Regional Key: Selected indicators from 2011 Census & NHS POINT DOUGLAS

Point WPG Worst WPG Best Indicator MB WPG Douglas CA WPG CA EDUCATION 1 No certificate, diploma or degree 35.9% 25.1% 19.7% 35.9% 12.7% 2 High school diploma or equivalent 28.6% 27.7% 28.6% 25.0% 33.1% 3 Postsecondary certificate, diploma or degree 35.6% 47.2% 51.7% 35.6% 61.2% EMPLOYMENT 4 Labour participation rate 61.2% 67.3% 68.3% 61.2% 72.0% 5 Employment rate 55.4% 63.1% 64.3% 55.4% 68.2%

6HOUSING Unemployment rate 9.5% 6.2% 5.9% 9.5% 4.7% 7 Renting,shelter costs are 30% or more of household income 45.0% 35.4% 37.5% 45.0% 31.2% 8 Owner, shelter costs are 30% or more of household income 16.8% 13.0% 14.0% 17.7% 11.6%

9INCOME Low income in 2010 based on after-tax low-income measure % 33.3% 16.4% 16.4% 33.3% 8.0% Su 10 Median individual income $22,157 $29,029 lker$30,455s $21,801 $38,440 B ow 11 Median household income $39,614 $57,299 $58,503 $36,298en $81,462

o M B ray D C R rm oro Fa na L ti L k s on o c IA s

o r e C R n b N e e

VI H Point DouglasT CA MapR ar ta 4 O B i n 0 r l 1 a l PR Ch PR y S O as 2 ha VI e 0 L Ho nn N 2 a wla g rk T C e W e I i rr A m anc L a D e RD o u d g R i L h ans A è do L p r w p G e P ne IA lec ar e ol ro W07D ve k son C Eagle Cree ss n u At In k ll lan ks N t i B D tic ter a H urt VI o l

P W l H T rit w oodst 's n uro O ch o one rd a n S ar M i d F ay B H Car PRSp arm w PS d r4ut er te C I r 0 her rin a HIGHWAY 59 Camsell hu L fo IN d s g G rch K 2 e V W h A L d ST ri a ig dm I a Ed es H lla e ira R o R B IG ce al l PH d M o LVD HW R T o ac tw A 9 roy C o hra as G Y 5 M w h y r E n l o M s d it i en 1 Y B un i r e n la o w 0 ri tai o r n t ay 1 A ck n s n f o o h c g Atla er p in d n lt ts c e n n n Fo IN W li o r o fe i S i y tic x K Sp l T a a r s f m S trrol a gr ST e i R M D e r e e o s r ov Err H h b a li a a r A d e r K e Rin r g h o h a n Bg G l P o ld i i t ow y L I 1 g P e c R 7 i A n m o le a VD PR n y R s s H z M d K O in i s a Fo Bo w n r V n n r rt n te w i n s IN r w i r ie n a o M n C i a St r H e e a e f e e IA o l uua at r G r M d li a Lll R o rt hw d Prois M ath R r P Dc a r ls W e a e i C a n m y M 's n No on so R dw Es i Do cIv e La n oo A sa G S y Wug 10A o b A ns d r e la r e 9 d n i McGregor Foarm s G ST w a n S i r R 5 n i a lm W a e s o Su o o g s t n s tt rD re sd N L Al y r on r on g i & I u o o fr r o w ll xt r ed e a o e on c

r a e d d od C 0 l l P A C P a t S C S l i h i n a ll G t u u 2 s t t e Bo ufe um c n rc K a h C r H yd ld V in at M P S B M g a A Y h o A A ret ll n ik ed ls Lu y e d r o r Fra M b ie e eAr M al n xt e se c erd z Sp y so A a Ba on e l rs Le e E r R n ch n a t n o We 07B d n in W r n i t aM d n is gfi ay ie erm t a v ag e o e S l A a d nu n ld Ht J C s an tla o B n o s O B K M oh hu nti c a ca C o n rc x c o G m o kla rda Bu o uI n s s h S D h n l ll ta Eo d d M rn eg i e M l W c e e n l i t H o R o t r C r F K L R Lau a ti lo Du der r h m P ra A ir nr e C e I ob r n lt er r e la in Lin r e wl r C de dd a C o i c r a n Bu S or F m N n ie P n dite I i z Kim s do s R e Sa b P bb n T r ED t V r Me er rito Lo u-P e T e lbo ly Hch elo W07C GrassWie Blu r O B urn ard w S M OO echer e o n D s

T c i ren B A P o Le A PR Otta t Frlon ntr ls lla Vs E o n s 3 wa Nei rxa S im o ERm 7 2 l S C el M a B e PR te o ki T ur l 4 H t lla n C rSk H ro a He t s n 9 Per l s O a o o fanickw P V rb a l nc ow L s pel i M 5 M e e INC son un ordi do an r a g I C W rDou n s ito A h D e ff F & SA i b L al a er M le a n R me lle nin o mi 0 u D r nl nc n A

s g g n eaJa o ton er 2

o d e t rv ews n is t r r Y ST Talb g M o n B P ot n art L a e A li in s te w rd r e t W N Pritcha B e o I A d v P H W10B K r e A W07A B nt a re IG each Y P 37 PR H St M e r O ella rn y e VIN S Lo t tell M e CIA Ja a ed id r s L S rv n st w RD ut is i u o h t L t d in G Rege erl z le ar te F nt a t s l r t nd l y Ha dw e u b u E n h r g E e a e A c c n u n r P i c ri e R S D e b Y l l P r o K id a W ve p B r NA a F I I RN AV M EL E A s SR Poin u I t Dou g H D gl n enr z as y e s A r i Y m t u FW y r Hi I a o ggi h e EL u ns t e l A G r c W07A: Point Douglas North SR M C y DI A a r c o G W07B:Rive rPoint Eas Douglast South M B NCNC Boundaries Boundaries MainMain RoadsRoads MajorMajor StreetsStreets

Point Douglas NC Boundaries 11 Prepared by EvaluationMain Platform,Roads December 2015 Major Streets Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS

Health Behaviours

PD NORTH 32% Individual health behaviors help to maintain Binge Drinking PD SOUTH [S] physical and mental health and reduce the risk of chronic conditions. Exercising daily and eating fruits 0% $ WINNIPEG 23% and vegetables daily are recommended to minimize

2007-2012 30% $ POINT WORST CA 38% disease burden. Similarly, it is recommended to avoid DOUGLAS BEST CA 22% smoking and binge drinking. + + FINDINGS ••The percentage of binge drinking residents has increased from 21% in 2001-2005 to 30% in 2007- 2012. In 2007-2012, 42% of residents reported that PD NORTH 40% they never drank; 27% identified as having 5 or Tobacco Use PD SOUTH 34% more drinks on one occasion less than once per month. 0% WINNIPEG 19%

2007-2012 39% ••The percentage of current smokers (daily or POINT WORST CA 39% DOUGLAS occasionally) has increased from 33% in 2001- BEST CA 10% $ 2005 to 39% in 2007-2012. In 2007-2012, 28% of residents identified as being former smokers; 34% identified as non-smokers. ••The percentage of residents exposed to second + hand smoke at home has decreased from 33% in Less Than 5 Daily PD NORTH 76% 2003-2005 to 26% in 2007-2012. In 2007-2012, Servings of Fruit & Veg PD SOUTH 77% 74% of residents identified as not being exposed to second hand smoke. 0% 77% WINNIPEG 62% 2007-2012 POINT WORST CA 77% ••The percentage of residents consuming fruits and DOUGLAS BEST CA 53% vegetables less than 5 times a day has increased from 64% in 2001-2005 to 77% in 2007-2012. In 2007-2012, 23% of residents identified as having fruits and vegetables more than 5 times a day. $ ••The percentage of overweight/obese adults has Overweight & increased from 61% in 2001-2005 to 65% in 2007- 2012. In 2007-2012, 35% of residents identified as Obesity PD NORTH 66% + PD SOUTH 53% being either underweight or normal. ••During the period 2007-2012, 59% of residents 0% 65% WINNIPEG 54%

2007-2012 POINT reported being physically inactive. The remaining DOUGLAS WORST CA 65% 41% residents identified as being physically active. BEST CA 46%

PD NORTH 59% Physically$ Inactive PD SOUTH 58%

0% 59% WINNIPEG 43% 2007-2012 POINT WORST CA 59% DOUGLAS + BEST CA 36%

12 Prepared by Evaluation Platform, December 2015

$ + Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS

Health Care Access, Immunization & Screening

Immunization typically is the administration of a vaccine Childhood Immunization in order to make an individual immune or resistant to an Aged 2 years infectious disease(s). Screening is a process to prevent 2007/08 POINT DOUGLAS 59% or recognize a disease in an individual when there are no $ visible signs and symptoms. Immunization and screening 0 WORST CA 59% WPG 72% BEST CA 79% at medically defined age intervals are vital for the prevention of disease in the community. Prenatal care (PNC) is an important preventive care. It helps to achieve Breast Cancer Screening a healthy pregnancy and birth which positively impacts 2010/11-2011/12+ POINT DOUGLAS 37% children’s health in the early years of life.

0% WORST CA 37% WPG 51% BEST CA 58% FINDINGS PD NORTH 39% • Immunization rate for children aged 2 years in Point PD SOUTH 30% Douglas has decreased slightly from 61.0% in 2002/03 to 58.8% in 2007/08. • The percentage of residents aged 65 and older Cervical Cancer Screening receiving a flu shot has significantly decreased over 2009/10-2011/12 POINT DOUGLAS 46% time (from 57% in 2006/07 to 51% in 2011/12). • During 2010/11-2011/12, 37% of women aged 50-69 0% BEST CA 60% WORST CA 46% WPG 53% years had a screening mammography for breast cancer. PD NORTH 48% PD SOUTH 42% • During 2009/10-2011/12, 46% of women aged 15 and older had a cervical screening (Pap test) for cancer. • In 2007/08-2008/09, the proportion of women with Inadequate Prenatal Care inadequate prenatal care (PNC) (19.1%) in Point 2007/08-2008/09 Douglas has been higher than Winnipeg’s at 7.7%. POINT DOUGLAS 19.1% Access to health services is essential for maintaining and 0% BEST 3.8% WPG 7.7% WORST 19.1 improving community health. To meet the health needs (prevent, diagnose, and treat illness) of communities, the Region and Manitoba’s Minister of Health are responsible Looking for a regular for providing quality services. medical doctor 2007-2012 FINDINGS POINT DOUGLAS 57% • During 2007-2012, 57% of Point Douglas residents reported not having a regular medical doctor and were 0% BEST CA 41% WPG 53% WORST CA 70% looking for one. PD NORTH 69% PD SOUTH [S] • The percentage of residents who attended at least one ambulatory visit (use of physician) in a given year has Use of physicians somewhat decreased over time (from 82% in 2006/07 2011/12 to 80% in 2011/12) POINT DOUGLAS 80% • Inpatient hospitalization has significantly decreased 0% LOWEST 78% WPG 81% HIGHEST 84% over time (from 105.5 per 1,000 residents in 2006/07 to PD NORTH 80% 92.5 in 2011/12). PD SOUTH 80% • The percentage of residents aged 75 years and older and living in a personal care home has significantly decreased over time (from 17.1% in 2005/06-2006/07 to 11.5% in 2010/11-2011/12). • The percentage of community-dwelling seniors (aged 75 years and older) using benzodiazepines has remained the same over time (17.4% in 2010/11- 2011/12).

13 Prepared by Evaluation Platform, December 2015 Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS

How Healthy Are Residents in Social Housing?

Having a place to live is very important for health and well- to the general population in Manitoba, residents living in being of all community residents. In order to have affordable Manitoba social housing do not live as long, are more likely to housing, some residents compromise and spend less on have schizophrenia, are more likely to commit suicide, and are necessary requirements such as, food, clothing, and healthcare less likely to finish high school (MCHP, 2013). That said, social needs. This may lead to ill-health. housing cannot address all the issues that are linked to poverty and poor health. Therefore, the data presented below may Manitoba housing provides a wide range of subsidized help review existing social programs in Point Douglas and their housing for residents with low income. However, it appears that impact on the health and wellbeing of residents in poverty. growing cost of living impedes the health of residents living in social housing. Researchers found that, when compared

Morbidity$ and Mortality

LEGEND + SOCIAL HOUSING RESIDENTS ALL OTHER RESIDENTS

Better than all other Point Douglas residents Worse than all other Point Douglas residents No difference compared to all other Point Douglas residents Premature Mortality Total Respiratory Morbidity 1999-2008, per 1000 age 0-74 2008/09, proportion all ages 9.4 25.7% POINT POINT DOUGLAS 5.7 DOUGLAS 15.3%

WINNIPEG 7.1 WINNIPEG 19.0% 3.0 10.6%

Injury Hospitalization Schizophrenia 1999/00-2008/09, per 1000 2004/05-2008/09, proportion age 10+ 20.8 5.1% POINT POINT DOUGLAS 10.7 DOUGLAS 1.9%

WINNIPEG 16.2 WINNIPEG 5.9% 6.4 1.1%

Diabetes Prevalence Mood and Anxiety Disorders 2006/07-2008/09, proportion age 19+ 2004/05-2008/09, proportion age 10+ 25.3% 43.4% POINT POINT DOUGLAS 12.2% DOUGLAS 24.4%

WINNIPEG 19.1% WINNIPEG 38.9% 8.6% 23.9%

14 Prepared by Evaluation Platform, December 2015 Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS Children & Adolescents

SOCIAL HOUSING RESIDENTS ALL OTHER RESIDENTS

Better than all other Point Douglas residents Worse than all other Point Douglas residents No difference compared to all other Point Douglas residents Mothers with 3+ Risk Factors Children Not Ready for School in 1+ Domain FY 2003/04 and 2007/08 School Years 2005/06 and 2006/07, proportion of students 52.5% 42.1% POINT POINT DOUGLAS 37.8% DOUGLAS 37.4%

WINNIPEG 49.9% WINNIPEG 45.8% 18.6% 26.1% $

Breastfeeding Initiation High School Completion 2004/05-2008/09, proportion of+ newborns School Years 2007 & 2008, proportions of graduates 62.1% 19.8% POINT POINT DOUGLAS 68.2% DOUGLAS 56.2%

WINNIPEG 65.8% WINNIPEG 45.3% 84.9% 82.1%

Complete Immunization by Age 2 Teen Pregnancy 2007/08-2008/09, proportion of children born 2005/06-2006/07 2004/05-2008/09, per 1000 females age 15-19 49.6% 158.9 POINT POINT DOUGLAS 53.9% DOUGLAS 100.52

WINNIPEG 57.7% WINNIPEG 155.3 67.5% 36.3

Screening & Healthcare Utilization

Breast Cancer Screening Complete Physicals 2007/08-2008/09, proportion females 50-69 2008/09, proportion all ages 27.1% 44.2% POINT POINT DOUGLAS $ 44.3% DOUGLAS 41.5%

WINNIPEG 37.1% WINNIPEG 44.7% + 62.7% 47.4%

Cervical Cancer Screening Majority of Care from a Single Physician RHA, 2006/07-2008/09, proportion females 18-69 2008/09, proportion, all ages 63.9% 52.8% POINT POINT DOUGLAS 60.6% DOUGLAS 71.9%

WINNIPEG 63.8% WINNIPEG 65.2% 71.7% 75.6%

15 Prepared by Evaluation Platform, December 2015 Community Profile | POINT DOUGLAS

User Notes