Autism & Disability Funding BC – Questions to the Minister

Last updated: June 2026 | We update this page as new information becomes available.

Q&A Update — Ministry Responses (May 2026)

These questions represent real families, real children, and real concern about what comes next.

The Critic for Child Care, Children and Youth with Support Needs (MLA Reann Gasper) gathered questions from families across the province and submitted every one of them to the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD). On Tuesday, May 26, 2026, the Minister's written replies were tabled on the record in the Legislature and recorded in the Votes and Proceedings, Nos. 69 and 70. That accountability matters, and we won't pretend it didn't happen.

But responding is not the same as resolving the concern behind a question. Below, we separate the Minister's reply — which is on the public record — from our own assessment of where the real worry was left unresolved. The questions we mark Partially Answered are the ones where, in our view, the reply disputed a premise, deferred to "implementation," or skipped the specific dates, names, or guarantees families asked for. Those are the answers we will keep pushing for.

How to read this page

To keep the record and our advocacy clearly separated:

🔹 Grey "Ministry reply" boxes summarize the Minister's on-record answer, each tagged with the source question number (e.g., Q1). You can check every one against the official record (link at the bottom).

🔸 Amber "What's still missing" boxes are our analysis — not the Ministry's words.

Tap any question below to open the reply. Where a number comes from a family/MLA question rather than the Ministry's answer — for example the disputed 10–15% projected to lose all funding, or the 85% of surveyed providers — we say so plainly, and note that the Ministry disputes those figures.

Summary

The Minister provided a reply to all 19 substantive questions. By our assessment:

  • We consider 8 of them answered.
  • We consider 11 only partially answered — and those are the ones we'll keep pushing on.

Here's what we believe is still unresolved:

  1. Which services, exactly? — Service categories were listed, but no specific curriculum or named program was given. (Q2)
  2. The funding gap — Autism Funding ends March 31, 2027; the Supplement isn't described as starting until July 2027. No answer for families who rely on the Supplement between those dates. (Q6)
  3. Who delivers care if providers close? — A disputed provider-led survey was set aside; the underlying question wasn't answered. (Q7 — the 85% figure is from a provider-led impact survey that 308 providers had completed; the Ministry disputes it.)
  4. Who owns the impact on independent providers and small businesses? — No accountability given. (Q8 — the 85%-closure figure is from the question; the Ministry rejects it.)
  5. Youth caught between rollout phases — No plan for those who don't yet have services or enough funding. (Q9)
  6. Adult transition — Pointers to existing (often waitlisted) programs, but no commitment on what, where, or when. (Q11)
  7. The evidence base — A research list was provided, but not the specific dates and the named pilot evaluation we asked for. (Q19)
  8. Who was actually consulted — Categories and some organizations named; no direct answer on why many frontline workers felt excluded. (Q14)
  9. Crisis preparedness — None of the five supports we asked about were confirmed with the specifics we requested. (Q20)
  10. Shared custody — Mediation and decision-making deferred to "implementation." (Q12)
  11. The families losing funding — No ownership for the disputed projected 10–15% who, on current projections, would lose all direct funding. (Q16)

Questions We Consider Answered

(In our view, these were answered substantively. Tap a question to open the Minister's on-record reply, with source question numbers.)

Will children keep their trusted providers — including families who receive little or no direct funding? (Q1)
Ministry reply · Q1

The redesign is intended to preserve and expand access to trusted providers, not replace them. Direct funding to families is rising from approximately $190 million to approximately $326 million a year once fully implemented.

Families on Autism Funding keep that funding until March 31, 2027 (or until they're successfully transitioned), so there's no abrupt cut-off.

Families who qualify for the Disability Benefit (up to $17,000/year based on functional need) and/or the Supplement can keep working with their existing providers. The Ministry states that about 74% of current recipients receiving direct funding are expected to receive $4,000–$6,000/year through the Supplement, which it says should let most families keep some or all of their existing therapy team.

Families who receive no direct funding are pointed to expanded, free community-based services delivered through existing networks — Child Development Centres, Indigenous-led organizations, and participating private providers.

If we use individualized therapy now (including parent coaching and family support), how is continuity protected? (Q3)
Ministry reply · Q3

Families eligible for the Disability Benefit will receive either $17,000 or $6,500/year based on assessed need, so children with the highest and most complex needs keep access to intensive, individualized support. Families with adjusted net income under $200,000 may also receive the Supplement (max $6,000/year).

The Ministry points to utilization data to argue most families don't use their full entitlement: average spend for Autism Funding recipients over age 6 is about $4,100 against a $6,000 entitlement; under age 6, about $16,000 against $22,000; combined Autism Funding + School-Age Extended Therapy averages about $13,000. Alongside direct funding, community-based programming is set to grow roughly 40% over three years.

The Minister said community services will be neuroaffirming — what does that mean in practice, and what informed it? (Q5)
Ministry reply · Q5

Neuroaffirming care is described as the standard in BC, not an exception: support should focus on self-actualization, autonomy, participation, and wellbeing rather than making a child appear "typical," and should reduce reliance on masking. The Ministry says it does not prescribe a single therapeutic modality, and that providers include PhD-level psychologists, clinical counsellors, behavioural clinicians, and regulated allied health professionals.

The approach draws on clinical expertise across disciplines, a provincial expert speaker series (2023–2026), research on mental health and outcomes for children with developmental disabilities, and input from families and people with lived experience.

Will community programming be available outside Monday–Friday, 9–5, and in different locations? (Q17)
Ministry reply · Q17

Yes, according to the Ministry. Programming is described as designed for flexible delivery — including evenings and weekends based on community need and provider capacity — and is offered virtually, in-centre, in-home, in childcare settings, in Indigenous communities, in recreation/leisure settings, and other community environments.

Timing and location are meant to be set around each family's needs, with expanded investment intended to improve after-hours access over time.

What research did the Ministry consult on autism and mental health, self-harm, abuse risk, and family wellbeing? (Q10)
Ministry reply · Q10

The Ministry provided a specific citation list, including: Farrow et al. (2024) on functional difficulties in autistic children/youth; Lai et al. (2023) on self-harm and suicide among autistic individuals in Ontario; Longmore et al. (2025) on predictors of depressive symptoms in autistic youth; Marquis et al. (2024) on mental-health diagnoses for youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities; multiple Public Health Agency of Canada, Statistics Canada, and CIHI reports; and both BC Representative for Children and Youth reports — Still Left Out (2023) and Too Many Left Behind (2025).

Our note: This is a real, specific list — worth acknowledging. It's also fair to point out that it is largely general autism and child–mental-health research, and does not clearly include sources on several of the specific sub-topics the question asked about — notably gender-affirming care and abuse risk — both of which were named in the question (Q10) but have no matching citation in the reply.
What research found that therapeutic horseback riding "has no therapeutic value"? (Q15)
Ministry reply · Q15

None, per the Ministry — it states directly that it has not concluded equine therapy is ineffective and did not undertake any such review.

It says that under the old model families could use funding for a broad range of activities including horseback-riding therapy where recommended by a professional, and that the redesign is instead about focusing public resources on core supports (pediatric therapies, behavioural and mental-health support, family support and navigation, school-aged services) and on children with the greatest ongoing needs.

Will there be grants for private providers to keep serving their "Level 1/2" clients? (Q13)
Ministry reply · Q13

No. The Ministry says the redesign does not include direct operating grants to private for-profit providers.

Its position is that it is instead increasing direct funding to families (the ~$190M → ~$326M figure), so families can choose to keep purchasing private services, while community-based services are expanded through a mix of agencies, Indigenous-led organizations, and participating private providers.

Why not keep individualized (AFU-style) funding for every autistic child? (Q21)
Ministry reply · Q21

The Ministry's stated rationale: a fully demand-driven model for all children regardless of need does not distribute resources equitably and creates significant fiscal risk, which it says would limit the system's ability to support those with the most complex needs.

It frames the redesign as a near-doubling of direct funding paired with a broader system of supports, aimed at distributing resources by functional need.


Questions We Consider Only Partially Answered

The Minister replied to each of these. Where we believe the reply reassured without resolving the worry — or left out the specifics asked for — we show both what was said (on the record) and what, in our view, is still missing. Tap a question to open it; the amber boxes are our analysis.

What specific evidence-based curriculums and service models will community programming use? (Q2)
Ministry reply · Q2

It listed the categories of service involved — behaviour intervention and positive behaviour support, speech-language pathology, occupational and physiotherapy, mental health and counselling, infant/early-years and supported child development, family support and navigation, specialized autism and complex-developmental supports, and school-based and youth programming — plus wrap-around supports like primary care, nursing, respite, and connections to services such as Foundry. It says services are delivered by multidisciplinary, regulated professionals (including Board Certified Behaviour Analysts and registered allied health professionals), are accredited and trauma-informed, and individualized based on functional need.

What's still missing: We asked for specific evidence-based curriculums — named programs and models. The Ministry listed categories of service and disciplines but did not name a single curriculum, and described its approach as "evidence-informed" rather than "evidence-based." Knowing that "a speech-language pathologist will be involved" is not the same as knowing which model, method, or program a child will actually receive.
The funding gap — Autism Funding ends March 31, 2027; the Supplement isn't described as starting until July 2027. (Q6)
Ministry reply · Q6

There is "no intended gap." The Disability Benefit will be fully implemented by April 2027 for all eligible families currently on Autism Funding, and existing funding stays in place to March 31, 2027. The Supplement's later start is described as "administrative sequencing," including alignment with federal delivery systems.

What's still missing: The reply addresses families moving onto the Benefit, but does not explain how a family who depends on the Supplement — and whose Autism Funding has ended — bridges the window before the Supplement begins, or how providers are paid during it. "Administrative sequencing" is not an answer to a parent who can't pay for therapy in the interim.
If a large share of surveyed providers aren't confident they'll survive past March 2027, who delivers the therapy? (Q7)
Ministry reply · Q7

It disputes the premise — arguing that more money than ever is flowing to families, that the model doesn't restrict access to private providers, and that claims about widespread provider closures "risk creating unnecessary concern among parents."

What's still missing: The actual question — who serves the children if providers close — is not answered. More funding to families does not help if there is no provider left to spend it on. The Ministry disputes the survey rather than addressing the scenario it describes.

For transparency: the "85% not confident they'll be open past March 31, 2027" figure comes from a provider-led service-provider impact survey — conducted by a provider advocating on this issue, not by us — which 308 providers had completed at the time of the question (the Ministry's own reply calls it "a service provider impact survey," Q7). The Ministry does not accept the 85% figure.

What ownership does the government take if its model causes a large share of providers/small businesses to close? (Q8)
Ministry reply · Q8

It rejects the projection and says its responsibility is to direct public funding equitably, sustainably, and by need.

What's still missing: No statement of ownership or accountability for provider/business impacts. The reply reframes the question rather than answering it. (The "85% of providers shutting down" figure is from the question itself; the Ministry rejects it.)
With youth services rolling out in phases, how are youth and families supported in the meantime? (Q9)
Ministry reply · Q9

It calls the "services won't exist for several years" claim "not accurate," and describes a phased expansion running 2026–2028, with early-intervention capacity for an additional 3,000–4,000 children and later phases adding behavioural, mental-health, and family supports. Families on Autism Funding keep it to March 31, 2027; those eligible for the Benefit move to ongoing direct funding.

What's still missing: A concrete answer for the youth and families who fall between the phases — those who don't qualify for the Benefit, or whose Supplement isn't enough to keep their current team, before youth-specific programming actually exists in their region.
How will youth be supported into adult transition (e.g., job-skills training)? (Q11)
Ministry reply · Q11

Through a mix of Benefit funding, expanded community programming (including life-skills and social-participation supports), earlier transition planning, and adult systems beyond CYSN — Community Living BC, and Social Development and Poverty Reduction (e.g., Persons with Disabilities).

What's still missing: These are pointers to existing programs, many with their own waitlists and eligibility barriers. There's no commitment to what is actually available, where, and when for a youth who needs transition support now.
Exactly how long was data collected, and from which specific sources? (Q19)
Ministry reply · Q19

It refers to "multiple years" of program data, over a decade of education-system data, public waitlist data, an independent evaluation of piloted approaches, and engagement from 2023–2025.

What's still missing: The specific dates and named sources we explicitly requested. "Multiple years" and "an independent evaluation" are not the citations we asked for — and the independent pilot evaluation is not named or shared.
Why were frontline workers and professional groups not consulted — and who specifically was? (Q14)
Ministry reply · Q14

It describes broad engagement (March 2023 – December 2024) with parents, Indigenous Rights and Titleholders, clinicians, researchers, community organizations, and underrepresented groups, and names some contributing organizations (e.g., BC Disability Collaborative, Family Support Institute, Down Syndrome Resource Foundation, ADHD Advocacy Society of BC). It points to a CYSN Engagement Report (2023–2025) and a CYSN "What We Learned" (2025) summary. It also states engagement was meant "to inform understanding of needs… not to directly design the funding model."

What's still missing: The names and roles we asked for at the individual level, and any direct response to why many frontline clinicians and providers report they were not meaningfully consulted. The Ministry's own statement that engagement was not intended "to directly design the funding model" is itself worth noting.
What crisis supports are prepared for families losing trusted care? (Q20)
Ministry reply · Q20

It disputes the premise that families will lose trusted providers, points to existing Child and Youth Mental Health (CYMH) services and crisis supports, navigation help, and "ongoing collaboration" with Health and Education partners, and says the redesign is meant to reduce crisis risk.

What's still missing: Direct answers to all five specifics we listed — a 24/7 crisis line, CYMH access without extensive waitlists, a re-assessment pathway, a guarantee of qualified (not trainee) professionals, and increased school/hospital resources. The reply gestures at existing CYMH and crisis supports, but none of the five were confirmed with the specifics we asked for. It is a general reassurance, not a crisis plan.
In shared custody, how are decisions made about a split Supplement? (Q12)
Ministry reply · Q12

It says the design will align with standard CRA and provincial shared-custody practices, that payment details (including who the primary recipient is) "will be confirmed as part of implementation," and that navigation supports won't play a role in legal decisions between parents.

What's still missing: An actual answer. The core questions — how split decisions get made in the child's interest, whether mediation is included, and the signatory question — are deferred to "implementation" with no commitment.
What does the government own about the children who, on current projections, will lose all direct funding? (Q16)
Ministry reply · Q16

It frames its 2022 commitment as maintaining funding "while engaging… to design a stronger and more inclusive system," says Autism Funding continues to March 31, 2027, and argues overall investment is rising and the model better targets the highest needs.

What's still missing: An acknowledgement of, or accountability for, the families who would lose direct funding entirely. The reply explains the policy direction but does not address the broken-commitment concern those families are raising. (The "10–15% who will lose all funding" figure comes from our question, not the Ministry's reply; the Ministry disputes that projection.)

Source: Reply from the Hon. Jodie Wickens, Minister of Children and Family Development, to written questions on notice submitted by Reann Gasper, MLA (Opposition Critic for Child Care, Children and Youth with Support Needs). Tabled in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and recorded in the Votes and Proceedings, Nos. 69 and 70, Second Session of the 43rd Parliament — Tuesday, May 26, 2026. Official record: leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-documents/ldp/43rd2nd/votes/v260526.htm
Question numbers (Q1–Q21) refer to the numbered written questions in that reply. Quoted summaries paraphrase the Minister's responses; "What's still missing" notes are the analysis of Fair Autism & Disability Funding BC.

Fair Autism & Disability Funding BC
Advocating for an evidence-based, transparent disability policy — for every BC family.