Ontario provides a range of services and supports to children and youth with Autism Spectrum Disorders.

In each defined service area, a lead Transfer Payment Agency is responsible for coordinating autism services funded by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. They also ensure that the core services and key processes are implemented in all service providers.

Instructions for downloading this dataset:

• select the link below and scroll down the metadata record page until you find **Transfer Options **in the Distribution Information section
• select the link beside the Data for download label
• you must provide your name, organization and email address in order to access the dataset

This product requires the use of GIS software.

*[GIS]: geographic information system

Locations of child care in Los Angeles CountyThis dataset is maintained through the County of Los Angeles Location Management System. The Location Management System is used by the County of Los Angeles GIS Program to maintain a single, comprehensive geographic database of locations countywide. For more information on the Location Management System, visit http://egis3.lacounty.gov/lms/.

The Community Status Report describes seven indicators of community health: PERS Debt, Worker's Compensation, Liens, Financials, Elections, Delinquent Audits, and Bulk Fuel Loans.The Alaska Workers' Compensation Act requires each employer having one or more employees in Alaska to obtain workers’ compensation insurance as outlined in AS 23.30.001-400 and in 8 AAC 49.890.Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Workers' Compensation DivisionThis data has been visualized in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) format and is provided as a service in the DCRA Information Portal by the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Division of Community and Regional Affairs (SOA DCCED DCRA), Research and Analysis section. SOA DCCED DCRA Research and Analysis is not the authoritative source for this data. For more information and for questions about this data, see: AK DOL Worker's Compensation.

Locations of offices providing disability support services in Los Angeles CountyThis dataset is maintained through the County of Los Angeles Location Management System. The Location Management System is used by the County of Los Angeles GIS Program to maintain a single, comprehensive geographic database of locations countywide. For more information on the Location Management System, visit http://egis3.lacounty.gov/lms/.

A list of available healthcare facilities in Alaska as provided by the Department of Health and Social Services Division of Public Health. The healthcare facilities in the list come from a Directory of Alaska Health Care Safety Net Providers who are providers delivering care to low-income and other vulnerable populations. Additionally it includes providers who are required by law to see patients regardless of ability to pay. Source: Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health

This data has been visualized in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) format and is provided as a service in the DCRA Information Portal by the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Division of Community and Regional Affairs (SOA DCCED DCRA), Research and Analysis section. SOA DCCED DCRA Research and Analysis is not the authoritative source for this data. For more information and for questions about this data, see: Safety Net Directory.This is a collaborative project between the Division of Public health and Division of Community and Regional Affairs. The hospital / clinic entities and contact information are provided to DCRA by DPH. DCRA attempts when possible to position each entity at it's real physical location.

Location of offices that provice senior services in Los Angeles CountyThis dataset is maintained through the County of Los Angeles Location Management System. The Location Management System is used by the County of Los Angeles GIS Program to maintain a single, comprehensive geographic database of locations countywide. For more information on the Location Management System, visit http://egis3.lacounty.gov/lms/.

Locations of domestic violence services in Los Angeles CountyThis dataset is maintained through the County of Los Angeles Location Management System. The Location Management System is used by the County of Los Angeles GIS Program to maintain a single, comprehensive geographic database of locations countywide. For more information on the Location Management System, visit http://egis3.lacounty.gov/lms/.

Mapping the spatial dynamics of perceived social value across the landscape can help develop a restoration economy that can support ecosystem services in the region. Many different methods have been used to map perceived social value. We used the Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) GIS tool, version 3.0, which uses social survey responses and various environmental variables to map social value. In the social survey distributed by the Borderlands Restoration Network (BRN) in May 2017, the respondents were asked to consider twelve different social values and map locations on a map where they perceived those social values to be. Additionally, they were asked to weigh each social value using a total of 100 points, and could assign each social value anywhere from 0 to 100 points. A combination of the points, weighted social values, and environmental variables were used within the SolVES tool. The SolVES tool then produced raster outputs that visualize the value index range for each social value assessed using the SolVES tool. This data release consists of two raster products. The first raster (SolVES multi-band raster) product consists of twelve bands, each band representing one of the twelve social values. The twelve total bands in this stacked raster are listed below, with the descriptions provided in the survey. The second raster product is a single band raster (SolVES summed raster) that shows the summed social value index for each pixel for the twelve social value rasters. Both raster products are clipped to the Sonoita Creek Watershed and represent the visual results of the SolVES tool. 1) aesthetic - ... I enjoy the aesthetics - scenery, sights, sounds, smells, etc. - within it, 2) biological diversity - ... it is home to such biological diversity, 3) cultural - ... it is a place of cultural value allowing me to pass down the knowledge, traditions, wisdom and way of life of myself and my ancestors, 4) economic - ... it is a place of economic value where I can earn a living, 5) future generations - ... I want future generations to be able to know, see and experience the watershed, 6) historical - ... it has historic value, with important places and things of natural and human history, 7) intrinsic - ... it has intrinsic value, irrespective of any instrumental value, 8) learning - ... because we can learn a great deal within it, 9) life sustaining - ... because it has life sustaining value through protecting and renewing clean air, soil, water etc., 10) recreational - ... because it provides a place for my favorite outdoor recreation activities, 11) spiritual - ... because it has spiritual value to me in the form of sacred, religious, or spiritual or because I feel reverence and respect for nature there, and 12) therapeutic - ... because it has therapeutic value, making me feel better physically and/or mentally. This data is used in the associated publication in the Air, Soil and Water Research. Petrakis, Roy E., Norman, Laura M., Lysaght, Oliver, Sherrouse, Benson C., Semmens, Darius, Bagstad, Kenneth J., Pritzlaff, Richard. 2020. “Mapping Perceived Social Values to Support a Respondent-Defined Restoration Economy: Case Study in Southeastern Arizona, USA” Air, Soil and Water Research. doi.org/10.1177/1178622120913318. The abstract for the associated publication follows: "Investment in conservation and ecological restoration depends on various socioeconomic factors and the social license for these activities. Our study demonstrates a method for targeting management of ecosystem services based on social values, identified by respondents through a collection of social survey data. We applied the Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) geographic information systems (GIS)- based tool in the Sonoita Creek watershed, Arizona, to map social values across the watershed. The survey focused on how respondents engage with the landscape, including through their ranking of 12 social values (eg, recreational, economic, or aesthetic value) and their placement of points on a map to identify their associations with the landscape. Additional information was elicited regarding how respondents engaged with water and various land uses, as well as their familiarity with restoration terminology. Results show how respondents perceive benefits from the natural environment. Specifically, maps of social values on the landscape show high social value along streamlines. Life-sustaining services, biological diversity, and aesthetics were the respondents’ highest rated social values. Land surrounding National Forest and private lands had lower values than conservation-based and state-owned areas, which we associate with landscape features. Results can inform watershed management by allowing managers to consider social values when prioritizing restoration or conservation investments."

IntroductionAssessing the contextual factors that influence walking for transportation is important to develop more walkable environments and promote physical activity. To advance previous research focused on residential environments and overall walking for transportation, the present study investigates objective environmental factors assessed around the residence, the workplace, the home – work itinerary, and the home – supermarket itinerary, and considered overall walking for transportation but also walking to work and to shops.MethodsData from the RECORD Study involving 7290 participants recruited in 2007–2008, aged 30–79 years, and residing in the Paris metropolitan area were analyzed. Multilevel ordinal regression analyses were conducted to investigate environmental characteristics associated with self-reported overall walking for transportation, walking to work, and walking to shops.ResultsHigh individual education was associated with overall walking for transportation, with walking to work, and walking to shops. Among workers, a high residential neighborhood education was associated with increased overall walking for transportation, while a high workplace neighborhood education was related to an increased time spent walking to work. The residential density of destinations was positively associated with overall walking for transportation, with walking to work, and with walking to shops, while the workplace density of destinations was positively associated with overall walking for transportation among workers. Environmental factors assessed around the itineraries were not associated with walking to work or to the shops.ConclusionThis research improves our understanding of the role of the environments on walking for transportation by accounting for some of the environments visited beyond the residential neighborhood. It shows that workers' walking habits are more influenced by the density of destinations around the workplace than around the residence. These results provide insight for the development of policies and programs to encourage population level active commuting.

Location of immigration resources in Los Angeles CountyThis dataset is maintained through the County of Los Angeles Location Management System. The Location Management System is used by the County of Los Angeles GIS Program to maintain a single, comprehensive geographic database of locations countywide. For more information on the Location Management System, visit http://egis3.lacounty.gov/lms/.

Location of public housing offices in Los Angeles CountyThis dataset is maintained through the County of Los Angeles Location Management System. The Location Management System is used by the County of Los Angeles GIS Program to maintain a single, comprehensive geographic database of locations countywide. For more information on the Location Management System, visit http://egis3.lacounty.gov/lms/.

The spatial configuration and social performance of public sports facilities serve as crucial indicators for evaluating the equity of public sports services and the coherence of urban spatial structure. As Shanghai accelerates its development into a globally renowned sports city, the construction of public sports facilities has encountered significant opportunities. However, challenges persist in the spatial distribution, accessibility, and quality of these facilities. This study investigates the spatial agglomeration characteristics, accessibility, and social performance of urban public sports facilities in Shanghai at both the street and grid scales. Using geographic information system (GIS) tools and analytical methods such as kernel density estimation, standard deviation ellipse, spatial autocorrelation, Gaussian two-step moving search, and the Gini coefficient, the analysis yields the following findings: 1) Public sports facilities in Shanghai are concentrated in the central urban areas and exhibit scattered spatial distribution patterns in peripheral regions. These facilities display a significant directional coupling with population distribution (northeast-southwest), reflecting pronounced spatial imbalances. 2) Social performance analysis reveals clear regional inequities in Shanghai’s public sports facilities. While overall accessibility is relatively high, disparities remain, with suburbs facing facility shortages. Regional equity measurements indicate that the Gini coefficient for public sports facilities in Shanghai is 0.58. Central urban areas possess a high density of facilities, while suburban areas suffer from inadequate facility coverage, leading to uneven service radii and a pattern of high agglomeration but low coverage. 3) The social equity analysis shows that the service capacity entropy of public sports facilities exhibits a distinct spatial distribution, characterized by high values in the east and west and low values in the center. The highest entropy value is 4.25, while the lowest is 0.02. This study provides valuable insights for the planning and optimization of urban public sports facilities in Shanghai, contributing to the enhancement of spatial equity and service effectiveness.

Terms of UseData Limitations and DisclaimerThe user’s use of and/or reliance on the information contained in the Document shall be at the user’s own risk and expense. MassDEP disclaims any responsibility for any loss or harm that may result to the user of this data or to any other person due to the user’s use of the Document.This is an ongoing data development project. Attempts have been made to contact all PWS systems, but not all have responded with information on their service area. MassDEP will continue to collect and verify this information. Some PWS service areas included in this datalayer have not been verified by the PWS or the municipality involved, but since many of those areas are based on information published online by the municipality, the PWS, or in a publicly available report, they are included in the estimated PWS service area datalayer.Please note: All PWS service area delineations are estimates for broad planning purposes and should only be used as a guide. The data is not appropriate for site-specific or parcel-specific analysis. Not all properties within a PWS service area are necessarily served by the system, and some properties outside the mapped service areas could be served by the PWS – please contact the relevant PWS. Not all service areas have been confirmed by the systems.Please use the following citation to reference these data:MassDEP, Water Utility Resilience Program. 2025. Community and Non-Transient Non-Community Public Water System Service Area (PubV2025_3).IMPORTANT NOTICE: This MassDEP Estimated Water Service datalayer may not be complete, may contain errors, omissions, and other inaccuracies and the data are subject to change. This version is published through MassGIS. We want to learn about the data uses. If you use this dataset, please notify staff in the Water Utility Resilience Program (WURP@mass.gov).

This GIS datalayer represents approximate service areas for Public Water Systems (PWS) in Massachusetts. In 2017, as part of its “Enhancing Resilience and Emergency Preparedness of Water Utilities through Improved Mapping” (Critical Infrastructure Mapping Project ), the MassDEP Water Utility Resilience Program (WURP) began to uniformly map drinking water service areas throughout Massachusetts using information collected from various sources. Along with confirming existing public water system (PWS) service area information, the project collected and verified estimated service area delineations for PWSs not previously delineated and will continue to update the information contained in the datalayers. As of the date of publication, WURP has delineated Community (COM) and Non-Transient Non-Community (NTNC) service areas. Transient non-community (TNCs) are not part of this mapping project.

Layers and Tables:

The MassDEP Estimated Public Water System Service Area data comprises two polygon feature classes and a supporting table. Some data fields are populated from the MassDEP Drinking Water Program’s Water Quality Testing System (WQTS) and Annual Statistical Reports (ASR).

The Community Water Service Areas feature class (PWS_WATER_SERVICE_AREA_COMM_POLY) includes polygon features that represent the approximate service areas for PWS classified as Community systems.The NTNC Water Service Areas feature class (PWS_WATER_SERVICE_AREA_NTNC_POLY) includes polygon features that represent the approximate service areas for PWS classified as Non-Transient Non-Community systems.The Unlocated Sites List table (PWS_WATER_SERVICE_AREA_USL) contains a list of known, unmapped active Community and NTNC PWS services areas at the time of publication.

Production

Data Universe

Public Water Systems in Massachusetts are permitted and regulated through the MassDEP Drinking Water Program. The WURP has mapped service areas for all active and inactive municipal and non-municipal Community PWSs in MassDEP’s Water Quality Testing Database (WQTS). Community PWS refers to a public water system that serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.

All active and inactive NTNC PWS were also mapped using information contained in WQTS. An NTNC or Non-transient Non-community Water System refers to a public water system that is not a community water system and that has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons or more approximately four or more hours per day, four or more days per week, more than six months or 180 days per year, such as a workplace providing water to its employees.

These data may include declassified PWSs. Staff will work to rectify the status/water services to properties previously served by declassified PWSs and remove or incorporate these service areas as needed.

Maps of service areas for these systems were collected from various online and MassDEP sources to create service areas digitally in GIS. Every PWS is assigned a unique PWSID by MassDEP that incorporates the municipal ID of the municipality it serves (or the largest municipality it serves if it serves multiple municipalities). Some municipalities contain more than one PWS, but each PWS has a unique PWSID. The Estimated PWS Service Area datalayer, therefore, contains polygons with a unique PWSID for each PWS service area.

A service area for a community PWS may serve all of one municipality (e.g. Watertown Water Department), multiple municipalities (e.g. Abington-Rockland Joint Water Works), all or portions of two or more municipalities (e.g. Provincetown Water Dept which serves all of Provincetown and a portion of Truro), or a portion of a municipality (e.g. Hyannis Water System, which is one of four PWSs in the town of Barnstable).

Some service areas have not been mapped but their general location is represented by a small circle which serves as a placeholder. The location of these circles are estimates based on the general location of the source wells or the general estimated location of the service area - these do not represent the actual service area.

Service areas were mapped initially from 2017 to 2022 and reflect varying years for which service is implemented for that service area boundary. WURP maintains the dataset quarterly with annual data updates; however, the dataset may not include all current active PWSs. A list of unmapped PWS systems is included in the USL table PWS_WATER_SERVICE_AREA_USL available for download with the dataset. Some PWSs that are not mapped may have come online after this iteration of the mapping project; these will be reconciled and mapped during the next phase of the WURP project. PWS IDs that represent regional or joint boards with (e.g. Tri Town Water Board, Randolph/Holbrook Water Board, Upper Cape Regional Water Cooperative) will not be mapped because their individual municipal service areas are included in this datalayer.

Some PWSs that are not mapped may have come online after this iteration of the mapping project; these will be reconciled and mapped during the next phase of the WURP project. Those highlighted (e.g. Tri Town Water Board, Randolph/Holbrook Water Board, Upper Cape Regional Water Cooperative) represent regional or joint boards that will not be mapped, because their individual municipal service areas are included in this datalayer.

PWSs that do not have corresponding sources, may be part of consecutive systems, may have been incorporated into another PWSs, reclassified as a different type of PWS, or otherwise taken offline. PWSs that have been incorporated, reclassified, or taken offline will be reconciled during the next data update.

Methodologies and Data Sources

Several methodologies were used to create service area boundaries using various sources, including data received from the systems in response to requests for information from the MassDEP WURP project, information on file at MassDEP, and service area maps found online at municipal and PWS websites. When provided with water line data rather than generalized areas, 300-foot buffers were created around the water lines to denote service areas and then edited to incorporate generalizations. Some municipalities submitted parcel data or address information to be used in delineating service areas.

Verification Process

Small-scale PDF file maps with roads and other infrastructure were sent to every PWS for corrections or verifications. For small systems, such as a condominium complex or residential school, the relevant parcels were often used as the basis for the delineated service area. In towns where 97% or more of their population is served by the PWS and no other service area delineation was available, the town boundary was used as the service area boundary. Some towns responded to the request for information or verification of service areas by stating that the town boundary should be used since all or nearly all of the municipality is served by the PWS.

Sources of information for estimated drinking water service areas

The following information was used to develop estimated drinking water service areas:

EOEEA Water Assets Project (2005) water lines (these were buffered to create service areas)Horsely Witten Report 2008Municipal Master Plans, Open Space Plans, Facilities Plans, Water Supply System Webpages, reports and online interactive mapsGIS data received from PWSDetailed infrastructure mapping completed through the MassDEP WURP Critical Infrastructure InitiativeIn the absence of other service area information, for municipalities served by a town-wide water system serving at least 97% of the population, the municipality’s boundary was used. Determinations of which municipalities are 97% or more served by the PWS were made based on the Percent Water Service Map created in 2018 by MassDEP based on various sources of information including but not limited to:The Winter population served submitted by the PWS in the ASR submittalThe number of services from WQTS as a percent of

Location of support groups in Los Angeles CountyThis dataset is maintained through the County of Los Angeles Location Management System. The Location Management System is used by the County of Los Angeles GIS Program to maintain a single, comprehensive geographic database of locations countywide. For more information on the Location Management System, visit http://egis3.lacounty.gov/lms/.

*These models included all individual sociodemographic variables, and the environmental variables associated with the outcome.

Locations of homeless shelters and services in Los Angeles CountyThis dataset is maintained through the County of Los Angeles Location Management System. The Location Management System is used by the County of Los Angeles GIS Program to maintain a single, comprehensive geographic database of locations countywide. For more information on the Location Management System, visithttp://egis3.lacounty.gov/lms/.

Locations of food assistance programs in Los Angeles CountyThis dataset is maintained through the County of Los Angeles Location Management System. The Location Management System is used by the County of Los Angeles GIS Program to maintain a single, comprehensive geographic database of locations countywide. For more information on the Location Management System.NOTE: This is a copy of the original dataset.

Descriptive information on the subsamples used in the study based on the RECORD Cohort, Paris Metropolitan Area, 2007–2008.

Abstract: Black individuals in the U.S. face increasing racial disparities in drug overdose related to social determinants of health, including place-based features. Mobile outreach efforts work to mitigate social determinants by servicing geographic areas with low drug treatment and overdose prevention access but are often limited by convenience-based targets. Geographic information systems (GIS) are often used to characterize and visualize the overdose crisis and could be translated to community to guide mobile outreach services. The current study examines the initial acceptability and appropriateness of GIS to facilitate data-driven outreach for reducing overdose inequities facing Black individuals.

Locations of public information services in Los Angeles CountyThis dataset is maintained through the County of Los Angeles Location Management System. The Location Management System is used by the County of Los Angeles GIS Program to maintain a single, comprehensive geographic database of locations countywide. For more information on the Location Management System, visithttp://egis3.lacounty.gov/lms/.