Universal Program Review



|PROGRAM TITLE |PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/CUTS |AMOUNT CUT ($’000) |IMPLICATIONS OF PROGRAM CUTS TO SENIORS |

|(*) legislated |(10% UPR SCENARIO) | | |

|TRANSPORTATION, UTILITIES, AND PUBLIC WORKS (TUPW) |

|SIDEWALK AND PATHWAY OPERATIONS - TUPW-06 |

|Sidewalk and Pathway |Frequency of spring sweeping of sidewalks and pathway surfaces would be |Gross: $648 |The accumulation of sand and debris from|

|Operations |reduced. Sidewalks would continue to be mechanically swept except where |Net: $648 |the winter months would make walking on |

|TUPW-06-4 |machines have no access due to on street parking. There would be a | |sidewalks dangerous for seniors. |

| |reduced level of manual sweeping. | |Minor deficiencies in sidewalks create |

| |Increased response time to repair deficiencies in sidewalk surfaces. | |difficult and dangerous walking |

| |Hazardous surface deficiencies would be repaired and all other repairs | |conditions for seniors. |

| |would be repaired on a complaint basis only. | |Serious health implications may occur if|

| | | |a senior accidentally falls. |

|TRANSIT SERVICES - TUPW-09 |

|Public Transit |Elimination of evening and weekend service in many residential areas. |Gross: $19,165 |Public transportation is the main and |

|TUPW-09-1 |Elimination of some services connecting residential areas with downtown, |Net : $14,388 |only form of transportation for many |

| |and reduction in frequency of some of the remaining services. | |seniors on fixed and low income. |

| |An increase in the distance that many customers would need to walk to the | |Further walking distances can be a |

| |nearest transit stop by removing a total of 26 routes and by reducing the | |hazard and sometimes impossible for some|

| |hours of service of 48 routes. | |seniors to manage. |

| |Elimination of specialized consultation for customers seeking accessible | |Due to the increased aging population of|

| |service. | |our seniors and the increasing number of|

| | | |seniors in Ottawa, more seniors will |

| | | |need to be able to access affordable |

| | | |safe transportation. |

| | | |A lack of affordable and safe |

| | | |transportation creates an isolation |

| | | |barrier for seniors that has a direct |

| | | |impact on their physical and emotional |

| | | |health. |

| | | |Inadequate transportation for seniors |

| | | |also impairs the volunteer sector of |

| | | |many institutions, as seniors create a |

| | | |large section of volunteer groups. |

|PROGRAM TITLE |PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/CUTS |AMOUNT CUT ($’000) |IMPLICATIONS OF PROGRAM CUTS TO SENIORS |

|(*) legislated |(10% UPR SCENARIO) | | |

|Transit Security |Reduction in the ability to investigate public mischief, other regulatory |Gross: $314 |Seniors are one of the most vulnerable |

|TUPW-09-2 |code and criminal code violations at transit stations, and reduce the |Net: $314 |groups of people using the transit |

| |ability to conduct other enforcement. | |system. Safety and security is a key |

| |Reduction in video surveillance and support calls for service. | |issue for seniors accessing this |

| | | |service. |

|Para Transpo Services |The dedicated sedan service for ambulatory customers would be reduced by |Gross: $2,071 |Seniors heavily rely on this service |

|TUPW-09-3 |725,000 current outgoing trips to an annual level of 637,000 trips. |Net : $1,881 |that it is currently not meeting the |

| |Reduced service for customers using wheelchairs/scooters, using the van | |demands of clients using this program. |

| |service for taxi. | |Further financial strain will be placed |

| | | |on seniors needing to access alternative|

| | | |modes of transportation to meet their |

| | | |special needs. |

| | | |Emergency services will unfortunately be|

| | | |used by seniors in non-emergency |

| | | |situations. |

|TOTAL |TUPW |Gross: $22,198 | |

| | |Net: $17,231 | |

|PROGRAM TITLE |PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/CUTS |AMOUNT CUT ($’000) |IMPLICATIONS OF PROGRAM CUTS TO SENIORS |

|(*) legislated |(10% UPR SCENARIO) | | |

|EMERGENCY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES |

|FIRE SERVICES - EMERGSERV-03 |

|Emergency Reponses |A 6% reduction of current Urban Fire Suppression capability meaning four |Gross: $8,095 |Seniors heavily rely on emergency |

|EMERGSERV-03-1 |stations would close, one other would be converted to volunteer status and|Net : $8,095 |services as they are one of the most |

| |five vehicles would be taken out of service. This reduction would | |vulnerable groups of citizens. |

| |result in increased response time throughout the city. The reduction of | |Emergency service requirements needed by|

| |service will result in increases to loss of life and property loss. | |seniors usually involve life or death |

| | | |situations. |

| | | |Fire protection services also respond to|

| | | |medical emergencies. |

|Fire Dispatch |An 15% reduction of current dispatching capability meaning longer waiting |Gross: $338 |Seniors rely on these services heavily. |

|EMERGSERV-03-3 |times for alarms to be answered and dispatched. |Net : $307 |As many seniors live alone, efficient |

| |The National Fire Protection Act standard requires appropriate staffing to| |emergency response times are crucial. |

| |ensure that alarms are dispatched within a 1:15 –95% of the time. | | |

| |Any reductions will also increase the potential for errors due to the | | |

| |amount of extra work for dispatchers . All reductions will negatively | | |

| |impact the coordination with other agencies such as hydro, gas, Paramedic | | |

| |service, police and providing public information. | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|PROGRAM TITLE |PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/CUTS |AMOUNT CUT ($’000) |IMPLICATIONS OF PROGRAM CUTS TO SENIORS |

|(*) legislated |(10% UPR SCENARIO) | | |

|PARAMEDIC SERVICES – EMERGSERV-04 |

|Emergency Medical |Medical Care Unit Hours reduced by 20,868 from a current total of 206,000.|Gross: $3,569 |Reduced ambulances and longer response |

|Patient Care* |Two ambulances taken out of service from a current fleet of 52. |Net : $3,569 |times are critical factors that are |

|EMERGSERV-04-1 |Response times falling below 2002 reported levels with a risk of not | |dependent on seniors’ survival rates of |

| |meeting 1996 legislated levels. Council approved service levels will not | |accidents or health implicated issues, |

| |be attainable. | | |

| |Longer response times of Code 4 (life threatening) calls, which have | | |

| |increased 30% over the past two years with a continuing upward trend in | | |

| |2003. | | |

| |As reduced resources are focused on response to critical Code 4 calls, | | |

| |response to code1, 2 and 3 calls that are received each year will | | |

| |decrease. | | |

| |As deployment of paramedics is based on call data and focused on areas | | |

| |with the greatest concentration of calls, areas with low call demand | | |

| |(e.g., rural, urban areas outside of the greenbelt) will be | | |

| |disproportionately impacted by reductions to the overall service level. | | |

| |1996 legislated response times not met will contravene the certification | | |

| |standards legislated under the Ambulance Act. | | |

|Emergency Medical |The province pays 100% of the operating costs of the contract and |Gross: $401 |A very important service to seniors for |

|Dispatch* EMERGSERV-04-3|accordingly, no reduction scenarios have been put forward in this service |Net : $0 |their health risks. |

| |area. | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|TOTAL |EMERGENCY & PROTECTIVE SERVICES |Gross: $12,403 | |

| | |Net: $11,971 | |

|PROGRAM TITLE |PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/CUTS |AMOUNT CUT ($’000) |IMPLICATIONS OF PROGRAM CUTS TO SENIORS |

|(*) legislated |(10% UPR SCENARIO) | | |

|PEOPLE SERVICES |

|COMMUNITY SERVICES - PEOPLESERV-01 |

|Community Centres |Closing 9 of the city’s 100 community centres. Each community centre |Gross: $1,806 |Seniors living on fixed and low income |

|PEOPLESERV-01-3 |serves an average of 75,000 people. A reduction would result in a |Net : $881 |depend on the senior programs. |

| |decrease of access to city delivered community centre recreational and | |Isolation of seniors is an increasing |

| |social programs. People with lower incomes are most affected as they do | |problem amongst the elderly. Isolation |

| |not have any other alternatives to programming. | |also has a direct affect on physical and|

| |Elimination of the two City operated community centre buses would create a| |mental health of seniors. |

| |barrier for accessing these programs. | |Financial and physical barriers are |

| |Loss of program development and delivery of for targeted populations such | |often posed for seniors attempting to |

| |as seniors. | |access decent transportation. |

| | | |As many seniors are often in need of |

| | | |affordable programs due to poverty and |

| | | |fixed incomes, many seniors who can |

| | | |afford valued leisure programs spend a |

| | | |considerable amount of their income for |

| | | |leisure. |

|Family Health* |The elimination of home management instructional and participatory |Gross: $1,266 |Many female seniors who live in poverty,|

|PEOPLESERV-01-4 |programs would create a loss of management services and employment |Net: $286 |live in poverty because they were never |

| |placement opportunities that help Ontario Works recipients find and keep | |able to attain any education to work in |

| |employment. 755 people were served by home management services in 2002. | |the workforce. |

| |Home management services assist high need and low income people with home | |Home management employment placement |

| |management counseling, light housekeeping and respite childcare. | |opportunities provide people with |

| |A 5% decrease of professional support in the event of a community | |necessary skills to enter the labour |

| |emergency. | |force and to help break the trend of |

| | | |poverty. |

| | | |In the event of community emergencies, |

| | | |seniors often become victims due to |

| | | |their inability to provide for |

| | | |themselves. |

| | | | |

|PROGRAM TITLE |PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/CUTS |AMOUNT CUT ($’000) |IMPLICATIONS OF PROGRAM CUTS TO SENIORS |

|(*) legislated |(10% UPR SCENARIO) | | |

|EMPLOYMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICES - PEOPLESERV-02 |

|Essential Health and |Loss of basic health care items, some of which are necessary for survival |Gross: $1,251 |Many seniors on low and fixed income are|

|Social Supports (EHSS)* |ie) respiratory supplies, diabetic supplies, mobility devices, glasses, |Net: $250 |dependant on these health services for |

|PEOPLESERV-02-1 |dental care and deductible for the Trillium Drug Program, hearing aids | |survival. |

| |etc. | |Elderly and frail seniors require |

| |Housekeeping services would not be available for up to 450 low-income | |services such as housekeeping which in |

| |persons who are frail, elderly or disabled. | |some cases can prevent illness such as a|

| | | |senior who is unable to take out the |

| | | |trash. |

|Financial Assistance and|The city would not be able to administer the provincially legislated |Gross: $25,439 |Many seniors are dependent on OW and |

|Service Delivery* |financial assistance programs such as Ontario Works and Ontario Disability|Net : $12,719 |ODSP programs. |

|PEOPLESERV-02-3 |Support Program. | | |

| |Failure to provide these services would result in provincial litigation | | |

| |against the city resulting in financial and other legislative penalties. | | |

| |If services cannot be provided by the city, they must be provided by a | | |

| |(ASD) Alternative Service Delivery Agent. The city would still be | | |

| |required to pay 50% of the administrative costs and 20% of all benefits | | |

| |issued to OW and ODSP recipients. | | |

|HOUSING - PEOPLESERV-03 |

|Residential and Support |The elimination of rooming house services would result in 2,000 room house|Gross: $2,736 |Seniors unable to afford to live in an |

|Services* |residents at risk of losing their affordable housing. |Net: $559 |apartment or other living arrangements |

|PEOPLESERV-03-2 |The community would not have a timely response to problems in more than | |desperately need these services to |

| |200 rooming houses. | |survive. |

| |37% decrease in services to community agencies, meaning a reduction in the| | |

| |community’s ability to help homeless and at-risk individuals and families | | |

| |find and maintain housing. Currently more than 9,000 people are served by| | |

| |city-supported community agencies. | | |

| |Subsidies for 123 of 850 domiciliary hostel beds would be eliminated, | | |

| |meaning 123 citizens would have to remain in their homes unattended or | | |

| |seek out hospitals for care. Three to five domiciliary hostels would | | |

| |close. | | |

| | | | |

|PROGRAM TITLE |PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/CUTS |AMOUNT CUT ($’000) |IMPLICATIONS OF PROGRAM CUTS TO SENIORS |

|(*) legislated |(10% UPR SCENARIO) | | |

|Housing Programs* |Cutbacks would create compromised compliance with legislative obligations.|Gross: $6,120 |Many seniors live at or below the |

|PEOPLESERV-03-2 |Subsidized housing would no longer be financially viable, resulting in up |Net : $6,121 |poverty line and require |

| |to 25,000 tenant households losing their housing due to inability to pay | |subsidized/affordable housing. |

| |rents or inability of housing providers to afford to provide housing. | | |

| |The coordinated access system (Ottawa Housing Registry) supported by this | | |

| |service area is the single central access point for subsidized housing in | | |

| |the community. Even a 5% reduction in this area would result in the | | |

| |elimination of this service and therefore people who are currently on the | | |

| |waiting list would have trouble securing appropriate housing. | | |

|Affordable Housing |A 10% budget cut would mean a 25% reduction in staff’s ability to |Gross: $30 | |

|Development |facilitate affordable housing development. |Net: $0 | |

|PEOPLESERV-03-3 | | | |

|INNOVATION, DEVELOPMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS - PEOPLESERV-04 |

|Community Funding and |A 10% decrease ($1.901 million) in Community Funding Investments will |Gross: $1,901 |Cutbacks to Community Service Providers |

|Development |affect 243 agencies. |Net: $1,770 |will result in decreases of much needed |

|PEOPLESERV-04-3 |Decreases to the Purchase of Service/Sustaining Funding category for | |senior programming. |

| |Recreation, Community & Leisure by 7% ($988,000) will affect 130 agencies.| |Many Community Service Providers also |

| |100% elimination of the Community Project Funding ($883,000) will affect | |apply valuable need assessment testing |

| |81 agencies. | |to the community that identifies |

| | | |problems and at risk populations such as|

| | | |seniors. |

|Recreation Planning, |Park Development and Redevelopment: Elimination of the capacity to analyze|Gross: $157 |The creation of communities that have |

|Policy and Business |within statutory time frames those development applications where there is|Net : $157 |adequate facilities to participate in |

|Evaluation |the potential to obtain parkland. | |leisure and recreational activities help|

|PEOPLESERV-04-4 | | |community members including seniors live|

| |Capital Partnership Development and Funding: A 50% decrease in capacity to| |healthy active lifestyles. |

| |develop and analyze public-private partnership submissions for facilities | | |

| |and programs that are core to the mandate of the City; and Policy | | |

| |Development, Planning and Departmental Strategies. A 25% decrease in | | |

| |capacity to address emerging community issues requiring a coordinated | | |

| |response from the Department and the City (e.g. Shared Use Agreements with| | |

| |the four area School Boards, high risk youth, seniors service issues, | | |

| |etc.). | | |

|PROGRAM TITLE |PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/CUTS |AMOUNT CUT ($’000) |IMPLICATIONS OF PROGRAM CUTS TO SENIORS |

|(*) legislated |(10% UPR SCENARIO) | | |

|LONG TERM CARE - PEOPLSERV-05 |

|Long Term Care |The closure of 70 long-term care beds, out of a total of 701 would result |Gross: $3,358 |Unnecessary spending due to seniors |

|Facilities and Seniors |in the transfer of residents to other homes. This transfer would increase |Net: $336 |having to use an acute care facility as |

|Day Centres* |waiting time for elderly citizens seeking admission to other homes. | |an alternative for long term care. |

|PEOPLESERV-05-1 |The reduction in total city-wide long-term care capacity would mean an | |Increased burden on families and women |

| |increased number of elderly people who would have to rely on acute-care | |to provide care for elderly relatives. |

| |facilities, family and community agencies for care. | |Increased risk of a breakdown of the |

| |Elimination of family and caregiver support programs resulting in less | |caregiver and/ or a breakdown between |

| |counseling and support available to help with the difficult transition | |the senior and caregiver without the aid|

| |from community living. | |of counseling services. |

| |There would be less timely interventions for residents and families in | | |

| |crisis. | | |

|PUBLIC HEALTH - PEOPLESERV-07 |

|Chronic Disease and |Loss of tobacco prevention resources and individual consultation for |Gross: $1,239 |Increased tobacco related illnesses and |

|Injury Prevention* |health professionals to support clients to quit smoking resulting in an |Net: $46 |death of seniors. |

|PEOPLESERV-07-1 |increase in smoking-related illnesses and deaths. | |The inability to provide seniors with |

| | | |the information and programming to live |

| |Compliance with the provincially legislated public health programs would | |a healthy lifestyle. |

| |decline to 75%. | |Increased use of costly health care |

| | | |facilities to treat preventable |

| |Reduction of workplace health program for 480,000 workers, particularly | |diseases. |

| |important for those in 25,000 small businesses who are often difficult to | | |

| |reach. | | |

| | | | |

| |Decreased support to hospitals and nursing homes to implement non-smoking | | |

| |policies and conduct inspections. Reduction in activities to reduce | | |

| |injuries and deaths due to alcohol and substance abuse. | | |

| | | | |

| |Elimination of collection of used, improperly discarded needles and | | |

| |syringes in parks and school yards would increase the risk of needle stick| | |

| |injuries and the spread of disease. | | |

| | | | |

| |Increase in type 2 diabetes resulting from reduction in education | | |

| |activities. | | |

| | | | |

| |Higher rates of preventable chronic diseases in multicultural populations | | |

| |resulting from the reduction of programs offered through the Multicultural| | |

| |Health Coalition community partners. | | |

| | | | |

| |Less cancer prevention information available through the partners of the | | |

| |Cancer Prevention Network. | | |

|PROGRAM TITLE |PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/CUTS |AMOUNT CUT ($’000) |IMPLICATIONS OF PROGRAM CUTS TO SENIORS |

|(*) legislated |(10% UPR SCENARIO) | | |

|Health Protection* |No after hours and weekend health hazard investigation. If a health hazard|Gross: $609 |Seniors are a vulnerable group of people|

|PEOPLESERV-07-2 |is identified, investigation would take place during regular working hours|Net : $304 |with sensitive health conditions. |

| |only. | |Preventable health measures can protect |

| |No Public Health participation in City’s pesticide use reduction strategy.| |many from illness and death. |

| |No inspections of vaccine fridges in doctor’s offices will result in the | | |

| |failure to ensure proper maintenance of vaccines in the community, | | |

| |increasing risk of adverse events, decreasing viability of vaccine and | | |

| |increasing the risk of vaccine preventable disease. | | |

| |Compliance with the provincially legislated public health programs would | | |

| |decline to 75%. | | |

| |Reduction of workplace health program for 480,000 workers, particularly | | |

| |important for those in 25,000 small businesses who are often difficult to | | |

| |reach. | | |

| |Decreased support to hospitals and nursing homes to implement non-smoking | | |

| |policies and conduct inspections. | | |

| |Reduction in activities to reduce injuries and deaths due to alcohol and | | |

| |substance abuse. | | |

| |Elimination of collection of used, improperly discarded needles and | | |

| |syringes in parks and school yards would increase the risk of needle stick| | |

| |injuries and the spread of disease. | | |

| |Increase in type 2 diabetes resulting from reduction in education | | |

| |activities. | | |

| |Higher rates of preventable chronic diseases in multicultural populations | | |

| |resulting from the reduction of programs offered through the Multicultural| | |

| |Health Coalition community partners. | | |

| | | | |

| |Less cancer prevention information available through the partners of the | | |

| |Cancer Prevention Network. | | |

|Dental Treatment* |1,200 disabled residents and their dependents would not be able access |Gross: $353 |Lack of proper dental treatment for |

|PEOPLESERV-07-3 |dental treatment. |Net: $0 |seniors who cannot afford adequate |

| | | |dental aid. |

|TOTAL |PEOPLE SERVICES |Gross: $46,265 | |

| | |Net: $23,429 | |

|GRAND |PROGRAM CUTS |Gross: $80.866 m |Ottawa’s population is aging, and is in |

|TOTAL: |(10% UPR SCENARIO) |Net: $52.631 m |need of more services, not less. |

| | |(Less legislated = | |

| | |$28.441m) | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download