Did the Ministry actually listen?

Families spoke. Five thousand of them.

The engagement included 1,047 online feedback submissions, 281 people from underrepresented populations (urban Indigenous, Métis, English-as-a-learned-language, immigrant, refugee, BIPOC, 2SLGBTQIA+, families of children who are deaf, blind, or have complex needs) through focus groups, interviews and an online survey, 47 First Nations that received provincial grants to lead their own engagement, and partner-led engagements with organizations representing Autism, Down syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), medical complexity, and the broader disability community.

This is the 13th report. Families know what happened to the others.

On page 8 of the engagement report, the Ministry quoted the analysis of one of its own partner organizations. This sentence frames the entire conversation about what the 2026 framework is doing, and what it is not.

"There have been 12 reports since 2007 with a total of 50 recommendations specific to children and youth with disabilities. No substantive change within that period."

Reciprocal Consulting Inc., Community Engagement Report on the Development of a System of Services for Children and Youth with Support Needs, quoted in the Ministry's CYSN Engagement Report, 2025, p.8

These figures match the record of the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, the independent provincial watchdog established in 2007. In its January 2025 report, Too Many Left Behind, RCY under Representative Jennifer Charlesworth pointed to "over 50 specific recommendations from RCY across 12 reports over 18 years" and found that "the majority of children and youth with disabilities still do not receive the full range of services they require" (p.15).

This is the context families were in when they took part in the 2023 to 2024 engagement. They knew about the 12 previous reports. They knew about the 50 unmet recommendations. They took part anyway, because their children cannot wait for a 14th report. The 2026 framework is the Ministry's response.

What families asked for, in their own words

The engagement report distilled feedback into recurring themes. These five emerged consistently across all engagement streams: from parents, service providers, First Nations Rights and Titleholders, advocates, and partner organizations representing the full range of childhood disability in BC.

1. Expand individualized funding to all children with support needs

Maintain and expand direct funding (including Autism Funding) to children with Down syndrome, FASD, ADHD, intellectual disability, medical complexity, complex trauma, and other conditions currently excluded. Base funding on need, not diagnosis.

"Maintaining direct funding for families with children with disabilities is crucial to giving them the freedom to choose and quickly access programs best suited for them."

Advocate for children and youth with support needs, Engagement Report p.21

2. Move away from diagnosis-based gatekeeping

Base eligibility on functional need, behavioural and medical complexity, and family circumstance, not diagnosis alone. The report found that diagnosis-based assessments "are inequitable with arbitrary criteria, are invasive for families," and often impose timelines that are "incompatible with child development."

"The level of support you get has to be based on how much your diagnosis (or need without diagnosis) impacts your life."

Parent, online feedback form, Engagement Report p.22

3. A hybrid service delivery model

Let families choose between individualized funding, agency-coordinated services, or a balance of both, based on their preference and capacity. Build on existing Child Development Centres rather than replace them.

"A hybrid model of funding delivery based on family preference is the best way to ensure that every family receives the support they require."

Down Syndrome Resource Foundation, Engagement Report p.30

4. Streamline under one ministry, ideally Health

Separate CYSN services from the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD), the child protection ministry. The Ministry of Health was most often cited as the ideal ministry. Families called for a single point of contact, cross-ministry coordination, and uncomplicated access to information.

"Consider moving the At Home Program from the Ministry of Children & Family Development (the ministry) to the Ministry of Health."

BC Complex Kids Society, Beyond Survival, Engagement Report p.36

5. Build the workforce that can deliver the system

Address shortages in speech-language pathology, occupational therapy, mental health, and behavioural intervention through loan forgiveness, paid professional development, rural incentives, standardized wages, and caseload limits. Build the capacity of Indigenous organizations.

"Incentives and funding to motivate disability specialists to move to northern and rural regions, reflecting BC's incentive model for family doctors."

Parents and Professionals Plan, Engagement Report p.33

Across all themes: co-creation, accountability, and "nothing about us without us"

Families and disability communities asked to be partners in designing the new system, not subjects of it. They asked for transparent criteria, evidence-based decisions, and monitoring measures to hold ministries accountable to the commitments they make.

"This change is [government's] to co-create with us, reflecting the disability community's Call to Action: 'Nothing about us without us'."

BC Disability Collaborative, A family-driven model of care, Engagement Report p.17

The language was adopted. The substance was something else.

The 2026 framework uses many of the words families asked for. It calls itself needs-based. It expands community services. It includes a new Disability Benefit. Theme by theme, here is what families asked for, paired with what the framework actually delivers.

1. Asked for: expand individualized funding to all children with support needs

What was delivered: Autism Funding ends March 31, 2027. School Aged Extended Therapies (SAET) end the same day. A new Disability Benefit ($6,500 base tier or $17,000 higher tier) opens April 1, 2027. Its needs-based review has no published qualifying bar, and nothing published says how the higher tier is decided. The Disability Supplement (up to $6,000) requires the federal Disability Tax Credit (DTC), a barrier that excludes many families whose children have ADHD, FASD, complex trauma, and other conditions the report explicitly named as currently underserved.

2. Asked for: move away from diagnosis-based gatekeeping

What was delivered: The fastest route to the new Benefit is still a list of diagnoses. The direct admit pathway covers a long list, including moderate to profound intellectual disability; Down syndrome, Angelman syndrome and other syndromic disorders; FASD with intellectual disability; Autism with the most significant needs (DSM-5 Level 3, profound Autism, or Autism with intellectual disability or certain co-occurring conditions); severe self-injurious behaviour; degenerative and palliative conditions; motor needs similar to cerebral palsy at GMFCS levels 3 to 5; and At Home Program eligibility (Guide for Current Service Recipients, pp.9 to 10).

Children whose diagnosis is not on that list, including most Level 1 and Level 2 Autistic children, must go through a separate needs-based review instead. In May 2026, the Ministry confirmed in writing that "the full process has not yet been publicly shared." On August 14, 2026, the Ministry published an eligibility table listing eight areas of need, from communication to future living expectation, with examples of significant needs and of documentation families may already have. It sets no threshold, score or cut-off, and does not explain how the areas are weighed or who decides. Families are being asked to submit assessments without knowing what level of need qualifies.

3. Asked for: a hybrid model that builds on existing Child Development Centres

What was delivered: Community-based services are expanding. Child Development Centres (CDCs) remain underfunded. The engagement report itself found that the administrative cost of managing Autism Funding is unsustainable, "leading to the closure of several CDCs' Autism services" (p.27). The new system has not committed to the funding formula CDCs need to take on expanded roles, so the "hybrid" model risks expanding one side while quietly contracting the other.

4. Asked for: streamline under one ministry, ideally Health

What was delivered: CYSN services remain under MCFD. In a May 6, 2026 response to us, the Ministry of Health said it is working with MCFD to "realign and improve services for children and youth with support and mental health needs," adding, "We are in the early stages" of that work. No transfer of CYSN services has been announced. The separation from the child protection ministry that families and First Nations specifically requested has not happened.

5. Asked for: build the workforce to staff the system

What was delivered: The 2026 framework includes $475 million in new funding over three years. It does not name a workforce plan, and it does not announce loan forgiveness, rural incentives, paid professional development, or standardized wages.

The Ministry has announced a staggered expansion of community-based services over three years: continued expansion of early intervention therapies (occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech therapy and behaviour support) from spring 2026; expanded behaviour and mental health supports in summer 2027; expanded navigation and family support in winter 2027; and expanded programming for children and teens in spring 2028. That last stage arrives a full year after Autism Funding ends on March 31, 2027. Every stage depends on clinicians and support workers the province does not yet have a published plan to recruit or keep.

A distinct engagement. A distinct set of unmet requests.

In alignment with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the Ministry held a distinct engagement with First Nations Rights and Titleholders. Sixty-three First Nations communities and organizations took part, and 47 received provincial grants to lead their own engagement. What they said deserves its own analysis.

Themes that emerged specifically from First Nations engagement included accessibility (especially rural and remote), racism and bias within MCFD, mental health supports, cultural appropriateness and safety, co-development and collaboration, and trust and relationships. Some overlapped with broad engagement themes; some were distinct.

Service avoidance from fear of child protection involvement

Indigenous participants reported that historical trauma, racism, and bias within MCFD lead some Indigenous families to avoid services entirely, out of fear that contact with the Ministry could trigger child protection involvement. The 2026 framework keeps CYSN services under MCFD, the same ministry families said they avoid.

Indigenous-led, culturally safe services

First Nations called for the Province to establish government-to-government relationships allowing First Nations to resume jurisdiction over services in their communities. The Ministry's May 4, 2026 response to our March 9 submission cited one Indigenous-led model: an integrated outreach approach co-developed in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region around Williams Lake. No commitments have been announced to scale this model province-wide or to fund Indigenous-led service delivery in other regions.

Building the capacity of Indigenous organizations

Recommendations included funding Indigenous organizations to deliver supports locally, recognizing the additional challenges they face in addressing the ongoing impacts of colonialism and systemic racism. The 2026 framework does not specifically address Indigenous organizational capacity.

Co-development, not consultation

First Nations participants distinguished between being consulted on a system being built about them, and co-developing a system with them. The engagement was the former. The 2026 framework rolled out without published co-development commitments with First Nations on the structure of the Disability Benefit, eligibility pathways, or service delivery model.