Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Legal Aid topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Legal‑aid groups urge board to restore unmet civil legal‑aid funding cut from budget

3795418 · June 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Representatives of legal‑aid organizations told supervisors that a proposed 60% reduction to the county’s "unmet civil legal needs" program will threaten services that prevent evictions, protect older adults and support survivors of abuse.

During public comment at the June 9 budget hearing, a coalition of local legal‑aid organizations urged the Board of Supervisors to restore cuts to the county’s unmet civil legal needs funding.

Speakers and claims: Lisonbee Brenner of Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Georgia Basile of Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA), Lisa Neustrom of Bay Area Legal Aid, Alexis Moody of the Law Foundation’s children and youth program, and Richard Konda of Asian Law Alliance described a recent 60% cut in the current fiscal year and warned the board the program was slated for elimination in FY 2026–27 under the presented plan.

Why it matters: The agencies described services that help low‑income residents preserve housing, maintain enrollment in public benefits such as Medi‑Cal and CalFresh, obtain restraining orders and other protections tied to immigration relief and survivors’ access to public benefits. The speakers said the services are upstream, cost‑saving interventions that prevent greater county expenditures on emergency shelters, health care and law enforcement.

Administration context: The presenters said the cut appeared to have resulted from a conflation of an existing unmet‑needs pot with enhanced immigration services funds; they asked for immediate restoration this year so there is time to work with the county on a transition plan.

Board response and next steps: Supervisors repeatedly acknowledged the role of these services and asked administration for follow‑up. No formal vote on restoring the unmet civil legal needs funding occurred during the hearing; supervisors asked administration to continue conversations with providers and to consider restoration options in the fall budget cycle.