Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Prevention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, providers urge Alameda County to restore prevention funding and adopt ‘Care First, Jails Last’ priorities
Summary
During the county’s budget hearing, more than a dozen public commenters urged restoration of UELP prevention funding (ending June 30 unless replaced), asked that Measure W and other discretionary funds be used to preserve prevention services, and called for investments in board‑and‑care homes, deep rental subsidies and public defender staffing under a CareFirst Jails Last platform.
At the June 18 Alameda County budget hearing, a succession of public commenters urged the Board of Supervisors to prioritize prevention and behavioral‑health services in the FY2026–27 budget, warning that several community prevention programs could end on June 30 without an immediate funding commitment.
“Without restoration of this funding, there will be a gap where vulnerable populations will not receive the support they need to survive,” Christina Yu, a clinical supervisor at MARU, testified, urging the board to restore UELP prevention funding to Measure W or other county discretionary sources so organizations can continue serving uninsured and immigration‑affected communities.
Multiple speakers described the role prevention programs in serving immigrant, refugee and elder communities and said the county’s June 1 Measure W allocations left out longstanding providers. Pisay Phineth, program director at Maru, said the programs serve more than 56,000 people across 27 language communities and urged the board to provide flexibility and interim funding while a longer‑term strategy is developed.
Speakers also advanced the CareFirst Jails Last funding platform. Organizers requested three specific allocations: $2 million a year to develop high‑quality board‑and‑care homes (Supportive Housing Community Land Alliance), $5 million per year to shore up public defender staffing for mental‑health diversion court work, and a $125 million source for deep rental subsidies intended to create roughly 5,000 vouchers for people with justice involvement and serious behavioral‑health needs. Advocates suggested shifting unused or reallocated funds from sheriff and jail accounts to these priorities.
Supporters framed the financial argument in fiscal and human‑service terms. One commenter noted the county jail population recently fell below 1,200 and argued that investment in prevention and housing would be less expensive over time than continued incarceration and crisis care.
Board President Halbert and other supervisors thanked speakers and said the board would take the comments into account when it reconvenes hearings next week. Staff committed to presenting more detailed program‑level material in the coming hearings so the board can consider the requests in the budget‑deliberation process.
The meeting recessed after public comment and will resume the budget hearing and program presentations starting June 22 at 1:45 p.m.
