Consultants propose $10 million plan and seven‑person pilot to stand up Alameda County Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs

A consultant team on Thursday urged Alameda County supervisors to fund and staff a new Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, outlining a $10,000,000 implementation proposal, a seven‑person pilot staff and six immediate steps intended to avoid service interruptions for immigrant and refugee residents.

The recommendation, presented to the Alameda County Together for All Ad Hoc Committee by Be The Change Consulting and Like Water Consulting Group, follows a months‑long study that included peer‑jurisdiction scans, 22 county stakeholder interviews, community focus groups and a nine‑member community advisory board. Consultant Sangeetha Kumar said the study identified roughly $7,000,000 in recent investments supporting legal defense, hotlines and organizing and cited an additional $800,000 county stabilization payment in February 2025.

Kumar summarized the committee’s priorities: “Trust and safety came up over and over — language access and access to qualified legal counsel is the single most urgent need identified across all groups,” she said. Consultant Alex Deschintal outlined eight core office functions, including a clearinghouse and navigation hub, countywide coordination and policy development, and said the community advisory body recommended a two‑year incubation followed by a stand‑alone office.

Budget and staffing details in the presentation called for a $10,000,000 floor for the initiative. The consultants said the largest line items would be contract renewals and augmentation for community‑based organizations, with staffing budgeted at $1,920,000 to support seven positions including a director and two deputy directors. The plan also envisions a $3,000,000 philanthropy floor to leverage private funding and recommended a $450,000 programmatic operating budget for startup needs.

The team recommended six immediate actions for the board: extend and avoid interruption of existing contracts for service providers; establish office placement with authority (two‑year incubation in a host department leading to a stand‑alone office); launch a director search immediately; fund the full seven‑person staff; grant the office explicit cross‑departmental authority to enforce language access and countywide immigration‑response policies; and allocate the programmatic operating budget.

Members of the public voiced broad support during the comment period. Esmeralda, an organizer with Trabajadores Unidos Workers United, said the office would centralize services “at a time where there is already so much fear.” Yonatan Greenberg, a field organizer with the same group, emphasized immigrant workers’ economic contributions and asked the county to act urgently. Dave Thompson, co‑executive director of My ID and Voice and co‑chair of ACUDIR (Alameda County in Defense of Immigrant Rights), urged placing the office in the County Administrator’s Office during incubation so it has cross‑agency authority.

Consultants and community members repeatedly stressed the need for continuity of services. Lisa Knox of the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice and a member of the community advisory board said sustained contract funding is critical for the community collaboratives that provide removal defense and other services.

The item was informational; supervisors did not vote. Vice Chair Supervisor Marquez and the chair said they would co‑author a joint letter to advance next steps and flagged that the county is moving into budget analysis, with a reported $95,000,000 deficit but available reserves. Marquez said sustaining current contracts would be the top priority during budget discussions.

The consultants said a final written report and graphic design layout will be produced for the full Board of Supervisors. They asked the board to solicit and incorporate community feedback and to return an abbreviated presentation to the full board. The committee set a tentative next meeting for the first Thursday in June.

The presentation and public comment did not produce any formal motions or votes; it served to inform supervisors and shape the next procedural steps for incorporation of the recommendations into the county’s budget process.