Operational Accessibility: Funding Systems That Keep People Employed
Operational Accessibility: Funding the Systems That Keep People Employed
Accessibility funding is essential — but neurodivergent people still can’t stay employed. What is the government doing to close the gap?
Canada is investing in accessibility yet neurodivergent and disabled workers continue to exit jobs at disproportionate rates. The problem isn’t whether any accessibility funding exists.
It’s what we fund - and what we don’t. It's how we fund - and how we don't. And it’s what remains constrained to government pilot projects, rather than being funded at scale through the community organizations and businesses that actually sustain people’s lives and employment.
Canada is getting better at funding visible accessibility, and this is highly valuable. The Enabling Accessibility Fund 2026 Call for Proposals (EAF) opened last week with $12 million dedicated to accessibility in the workplace, including to non-profits and small businesses.
EAF funds accessible infrastructure, equipment, and ICT - solutions designed to benefit employees with disabilities, including multi-sensory rooms and other built-environment improvements.
The EAF provides guidance in the form of accessibility flow charts to help applicants identify the relevant, fundable accessibility projects tailored to specific contexts. This is real progress. Organizations should absolutely pursue these opportunities and implement these changes.
What EAF doesn’t primarily fund — and why it matters
At the same time, we must keep in mind that many consequential accessibility barriers are not physical at all.
Much of the exclusion that drives employment inequity for neurodivergent people - including hiring and retention failure happens inside what I would call operational accessibility:
the HR processes, manager practices, performance systems, restructuring and lack of employment equity reviews and strong accountability systems at all stages of decision-making. These factors significantly shape who accesses employment, who stays employed, and what opportunities they have while employed.
Many of the highest-impact neuroinclusive supports are not objects. They are operating conditions and organizational systems that are often treated as optional, inconsistently implemented, and rarely measured.
These include:
accommodation workflows that function (re timelines, dignity, follow through, accountability)
clear expectations, priorities and tasks
reduced context switching and administrative burdens
asynchronous options and communication-access norms
manager capability measured by behaviour and outcomes (not training attendance)
human supports (coaching, navigation, peer supports)
restructuring and layoff governance that includes disability equity review
These are not marginal issues. They are the primary determinants of retention for neurodivergent individuals.
Too often, accessibility is reduced to what is visible- and that creates risk.
This matters because the duty to accommodate includes changes to policies and practices, not only physical space or equipment, as reflected across federal and provincial human rights and employment equity legislation
Proof this is solvable: the Better Accommodation Project
The federal public service has already built a strong operational accessibility model through the Better Accommodation Project (BAP).
BAP provides practical, easy-to-use accommodation toolkits for both organizations and service users that reflect neurodivergent needs. Although piloted only in the federal public service, the tools and approach are relevant more widely. The BAP demonstrates that operational accessibility can be designed, assessed, and improved systemically.
One of BAP’s tools — the Workplace Accommodation Service Delivery Maturity Self-Assessment identifies seven Key Success Factors for a best-in-class accommodation service.
The first is stated plainly: BAP Key Success Factor 1: Adopt and promote a clear approach to workplace accommodation service delivery for employees with disabilities. It is widely reported that no consistent or accessible information is provided on workplace accommodations, so this is meaningful.
And this framing matters. It treats accommodation as a service delivery system with governance, clarity, accountability, and consistency not as an ad hoc request or a piece of equipment.
If the federal public service has already built effective operational accommodation tools, are there funded pathways for non-profits and other EAF-eligible employers to implement the same systems?
Why this is urgent now
Workforce adjustment is the stress test for accessibility.
Last week, 1,775 workforce adjustment notices were served to members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) across the federal public service. Over the last year, 4,620 PSAC members received workplace adjustment notices. Here in British Columbia, over 1, 100 positions have been eliminated in BC health authorities- including individuals that have been awaiting workplace accommodations.
When accommodation systems are weak or informal, “neutral” restructuring criteria can unintentionally reproduce exclusion. Without dedicated funding for operational accessibility, inequitable outcomes are not accidental — they are predictable.
The policy questions that need answers
What is underway to fund mandatory accommodation service delivery systems, not just infrastructure?
Could EAF be paired with a companion mechanism to support implementation, workflow redesign, and accountability?
Will the federal focus on improving accommodation quality extend beyond the federal workforce to the community?
If we only fund what is visible and easily purchased and treat everything else as optional—we will keep producing accessible spaces while disabled and neurodivergent workers are still pushed out by process: accommodation delays, inconsistent manager practice, performance systems, and restructuring rules that were never designed for us.
Accessibility isn’t only a design feature. It’s a governance feature. Optional training, without senior-leadership accountability for adoption or consequences for failure to adopt will not be enough. Direct funding to organizations is needed for operational accessibility.
If you know what’s in motion or what should be, I’d genuinely value your perspective.
