Alameda County Board directs search for $3.5 million in one-time funds for immigrant rapid‑response services, prioritizes hotline

Alameda County supervisors voted Feb. 18 to ask the County Administrator to identify one‑time funding for a proposed $3.5 million emergency package to support immigrant rapid‑response services, prioritizing a countywide hotline, Know‑Your‑Rights outreach and preemptive legal services.

The motion, made by Supervisor Rebecca Fortunato Bass and seconded by Supervisor Aisha Marquez, directs staff to return to the board on Feb. 25 with a status report and funding options for specific contracts. The board approved the motion by roll call: Supervisors Marquez, Tam, Fortunato Bass and President Halbert voted aye; Supervisor Miley was excused.

Why it mattered: dozens of residents, advocacy groups and faith leaders urged immediate funding, describing heightened fear in immigrant communities and a drop in service use at food banks, schools and clinics. Monique Berlanga, Executive Director of Centro Legal de la Raza, told the board her organization ‘‘soft launched’’ a hotline and distributed thousands of red cards and asked for support to scale services. ‘‘We responded to 30 rapid response calls and intervened in 4 ICE arrests,’’ Berlanga said, summarizing early volunteer efforts and requesting $700,000 to staff and expand the hotline.

Supporters framed the package as mainly legal defense and outreach. County materials and speakers said the proposal includes about $1.3 million for an expansion of the Public Defender’s immigration unit, approximately $700,000 to stand up a staffed hotline and additional grants for community‑based organizations providing outreach, education and removal‑defense legal services. Monique Berlanga said the combined community ask is roughly $4.2 million; the board’s $3.5 million proposal reflects a matching approach with foundations and other partners.

Opposition and concerns: A smaller set of callers objected to the allocation. Mindy Petchenok, a candidate for Oakland mayor, argued the funding should be spent instead on homelessness and addiction services and said she did not see a compelling public‑safety threat requiring the money. ‘‘Why would we waste $3,500,000 instead of going after the drug crisis in Oakland?’’ she said.

County staff and supervisors repeatedly stressed that the proposal is intended to comply with law and be implemented via existing contracting and procurement channels. County Administrator staff said the February 25 report would focus first on options to fully staff the hotline and identify one‑time funding without reducing mandated services.

Votes at a glance: the board passed the motion to pursue one‑time funding for the $3.5 million emergency allocation with a 4–0 vote (Supervisor Miley excused). The board separately approved Item 19, a $50,000 District 2 Fiscal Management Reward grant to Centro Legal de la Raza, also by a 4–0 vote with one excused.

What happens next: the County Administrator will work with Social Services, Health, the Public Defender and contracting staff to identify cost‑savings, one‑time sources and specific contracts and return on Feb. 25 with funding options and a recommended path for immediate staffing of the hotline.

Quotes from the meeting:

"Alameda County must stand and do the right thing and stand by immigrants," said Julie Litwin of Kahila Community Synagogue (public commenter).

"They started that work because they did not wait for the county," Supervisor Marquez said of Centro Legal de la Raza’s soft launch, urging the board not to delay the hotline funding.

"We could use that money for citizens of Oakland who are living on the streets," said Mindy Petchenok, opposing the allocation.

Details and context: the motion instructs staff to prioritize rapid response, Know‑Your‑Rights training and preemptive legal services; supervisors emphasized using non‑restricted or one‑time funds where possible and coordinating with state allocations for immigrant legal services. Several speakers urged the board to match community and philanthropic funding rather than be the sole funder.

The board’s action does not itself appropriate the full $3.5 million; it directs staff to return with identified funding sources and contract options for the board to consider at a subsequent meeting.