Written submission · Budget 2027
As more children enter the system, each child receives less.
We are parents and caregivers of children with autism and other disabilities across British Columbia — including families in rural and remote communities. We read the government's own caseload projections, Service Plan, and budget tables. This is what they mean for our kids under the new CYSN framework.
Two lines, moving apart
MCFD Service Plan · 2026/27 → 2028/29
Funding per child shown in dollars (left line). Caseload shown as a growth index — different scales, one story: spending per child falls ~30% while the number of children rises 36%. The 2026/27 figure is inflated by a one-time overlap of two systems during transition.
What this submission is
Our concern is not the arithmetic. It's the consequences.
Per-child funding falls in real terms as caseloads grow, while thousands of families outside urban centres are left to buy services privately with a cash benefit — with no government-funded community services where they live. We've checked the numbers against the government's own Service Plan and budget tables. They hold up. That's the problem.
We make three recommendations for Budget 2027: set a real benefit floor, treat rural access as its own funded item, and keep per-child funding from sliding as more children arrive.
Set a real benefit floor, and publish the rules before Budget 2027.
Fund a CYSN Disability Benefit tier of at least $6,500 for children aged 6–18, and at least $17,000 for early intervention for children aged 0–5. Publish the higher-tier eligibility criteria before Budget 2027.
Of the $764M presented in Budget 2026, $289M is not new money — it is existing Autism Funding Program and SAET funding, cancelled and rebranded, as the government's own Table 1.2.3 and FAQ confirm. Of the $475M described as net new, $245M is a Ministry of Finance tax measure delivered through the CRA: it never reaches MCFD, doesn't begin until July 2027, and carries no clinical oversight. That leaves roughly $230M in real new MCFD operational funding over three years — for a system the Service Plan projects will grow 36%.
Where the headline "$764M" actually goes
A defined floor is essential, and it should be set in regulation rather than left to discretion. The Ministry already holds the caseload data to cost these tiers precisely — we ask that it publish that costing alongside the criteria, so families understand how decisions about their children are made.
Make rural and remote access its own funded line in Budget 2027.
Treat rural and remote access as a standalone budget item — with placeholder funding paid directly to families and dedicated planning for the infrastructure needed to deliver equitable public services province-wide.
The $80M for community-based programming is welcome, but community programs are urban by nature. Families in the Interior, the North, and Vancouver Island communities outside Victoria often have no community program or Child Development Centre within reach. A cash benefit you can only spend on private providers — with no publicly funded service behind it — is not equity.
Geographic equity requires a dedicated stream that closes these gaps through community consultation and infrastructure creation — not an assumption that infrastructure already exists. A mobile therapy unit does not provide access equivalent to a Child Development Centre. Until permanent public infrastructure is built, rural and remote families should receive placeholder financing as a bridge, so that no child goes without support because of where they live.
Hold per-child funding steady in real terms as caseloads grow.
Maintain average per-child funding in real terms in Budget 2027 and beyond, so dollars keep pace with both inflation and the rising number of children accessing services.
Using the government's own caseload projections, average per-child funding declines sharply across the period:
The 2026/27 figure is high only because two systems run at once during transition — a one-time overlap, not a sustained level. Strip it out and the trend is a roughly 30% reduction in per-child value over three years, while the caseload grows 36%.
We also compared Budget 2026 to commitments already made. The 2025 Budget had planned CYSN funding through 2027/28. Adjusted for inflation, and once the transition overlap is removed, Budget 2026 delivers less than the 2025 Budget already promised in both comparable years. We are not asking for more than was committed — we are asking that the dollars keep pace with the children who need them.
What we're asking
Set the floor. Close the map. Hold the line.
Three changes Budget 2027 can make so that funding reflects the real cost of care, reaches every part of the province, and grows with the children who depend on it.
Read the full submission