Supervisors agree to return refugee resettlement funding for discussion as community pushes for centralized immigrant services hub

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 25 voted to return item C4 — a request tied to emergency refugee resettlement funding — for formal discussion next week after extensive public comment from resettlement agencies, faith groups and immigrant advocates asking the county to fill gaps created by a recent federal funding pause.

The move follows repeated appeals from service providers and residents who said the federal pause has left newcomers without housing, legal help and enrollment services. "We have a 25 new community members who are in the process of resettlement. The work has been frozen," said Robin Mencher, CEO of Jewish Family and Community Services East Bay, during the board's public comment period. "We want to be able to finish the job to make sure that everyone has a secure home, an employment pathway and access to health services," she said.

Why it matters: County staff and supervisors emphasized that the request represents an immediate, time‑bound need for a small number of refugees who arrived before the federal pause, but that the county faces multiple, competing requests should federal funding be further reduced. "This is the first of many potential requests for us to backfill the loss of federal funding," Supervisor John Gioia said, adding that state and federal shortfalls could affect health care, housing vouchers and other safety‑net services. Supervisors asked staff to inventory other likely funding requests and to report what previously allocated Measure X monies might be available to fill urgent gaps.

What the board did: The board agreed to place the refugee resettlement item on next week's agenda for discussion; the full consent calendar (C1–C148, with Chair Anderson recusing on C136) passed unanimously. The board did not approve a specific allocation on Feb. 25 — instead supervisors asked staff to return with more detail, including the status of existing Measure X allocations and any remaining balances of previously authorized refugee allocations.

What providers said: Representatives of the International Rescue Committee, Jewish Family and Community Services East Bay and the Jewish Community Relations Council said the families at stake are already in Contra Costa, have urgent needs and cannot wait while organizations attempt to cobble together alternative funding. "Imagine arriving to the U.S. with no contacts, no friends, not speaking the language, and the organization that has promised to help you has suddenly had funding pulled," Mitch Margolis, director of IRC Oakland, told the board. Jonathan Minster, senior director of government affairs at JCRC, called the funding an "investment in Contra Costa," and noted that refugees often become "invaluable parts of our community and our economy."

Board concerns and next steps: Supervisors pressed for a careful, countywide approach: they said one emergency request should not erode the county's ability to make a case to state and federal officials that the cuts are unjustified. Supervisor Ken Carlson said Alameda County recently allocated nearly $800,000 to backfill a similar cut and that the county would consider an out‑of‑cycle Measure X allocation only if programs could not obtain waivers or restored federal funding. Supervisor Diane Burgess asked staff to examine whether the $1 million previously allocated to resettlement had any remaining balance; staff later reported roughly $20,000 remained from that earlier allocation.

Public demand for a WISH hub: Public commenters pressed the board not just for short‑term backfilling but for a permanent, centralized immigrant services hub — often called a WISH (Welcoming Immigrant Support Hub) Center — that would combine legal aid, tenant rights support, health referrals and culturally and linguistically accessible services in a single place or network of sites. "If Contra Costa doesn't act now, these organizations will not be able to continue their critical work," Jonathan Minster said. Multiple speakers urged the board to prioritize funding for such a hub and to ensure the model included legal representation for people in immigration proceedings; studies cited by speakers note that having counsel greatly increases an immigrant's chance of a successful outcome in immigration court.

Funding ideas and timing: Supervisor Ken Carlson said the WISH Center effort is modeled on the Family Justice Center approach (a co‑located, multi‑agency model) and that early planning will focus on partnerships with community‑based organizations and regional coordination; he said he expects to return to the board in late March with more specific structure and funding requests. Members of the public and several supervisors suggested Measure X one‑time funds or ARPA allocations as possible near‑term sources; community members also asked the board to consider using any unspent Measure X balances as a short‑term bridge.

What comes next: Staff will prepare detail for next week's discussion of item C4, including the status of previously allocated resettlement money, any available Measure X balances, and a broader inventory of potential federal funding shortfalls county‑wide. The board will take up the refugee item again next week as requested; any formal allocation would require a future vote.