Rancho Cucamonga’s Healthy RC Program: Youth Access, Political Favoritism, and Legal Implications

Mayor Dennis Michael and Councilmembers: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Lynne Kennedy and Ashley Stickler voted to implement discredited Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI).

This article correlates findings on the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) concentric Healthy RC program, examining access for youth, program costs, grant funding, nonprofit providers, propaganda awards, legal aspects, including constitutional implications.

Rancho Cucamonga’s Healthy RC Program, launched in 2008 was influenced by Michelle Obama’s health equity initiative, Lets Move! The programs goal is to address rising health issues. Through grant subsidies, the city-community partnership engages residents, youth, and stakeholders to promote the mantra “healthy minds, bodies”, through policies, programs, and partnerships. Within the contexts of the theory of systemic racism and mental health (resilience, mindfulness, empathy, compassion, bullying), Healthy RC’s youth-focused initiatives, such as the Healthy RC Youth Leaders and Campeones para la Comunidad programs, aim to socially engineer and condition youth responses to address health inequities. However, allegations of political favoritism in youth access, coupled with the program’s costs, funding, providers, awards, and potential constitutional issues, raise questions about equity, legality and long-term viability of the program.

Political Favoritism in Youth Access

Healthy RC’s youth programs exhibit signs of political favoritism, granting special access to select teens, often those connected to city officials or aligned with the program’s public image. The Healthy RC Youth Leaders program, described as “award-winning” and selective, requires applications and is limited to middle and high school students (ages 12–17), with applications reopening annually in July. This competitive process, while merit-based, may favor youth with prior leadership experience, access to information, or connections to city networks, potentially excluding marginalized teens from southwest Rancho Cucamonga, where poverty and language barriers limit engagement.

The program’s structure, involving direct collaboration with elected officials, city staff, and bias steering committee appointees, suggests preferential treatment for participants who align with Healthy RC’s goals or the city’s political narrative of health equity emphasizing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) mission. For example, Youth Leaders like Maelin Aquino (2014 co-chair) gained visibility through media and conferences, presenting at the 2013 Biennial Childhood Obesity Conference, which may amplify opportunities for well-connected teens. Furthermore, the city’s emphasis on showcasing and exploiting youth success stories (e.g., public service announcements like “It’s OK to Air Your Dirty Laundry”) may prioritize teens who fit a polished, marketable image, sidelining those with less polished skills or dissenting views. This selective access mirrors systemic favoritism, where political and social capital influences opportunities undermining collective DEI goals.

Program Costs and Funding

Healthy RC’s costs are significant, driven by staff positions, community events, and youth programs. The city created three staff positions to support Healthy RC: two funded by the Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities (HKHC) grant and one through the city’s general fund, ensuring sustained operations post-HKHC (ended 2014). Specific program costs include:

• Youth Leaders Program: Estimated at $50,000–$100,000 annually (staff, materials, events), based on similar youth leadership programs, though exact figures are undisclosed.

• Mental Health Symposium (2017): Free to attendees but incurred costs for venue (Central Park), speakers, and materials, estimated at $10,000–$20,000.

• Safe Routes to School: Supported by a $389,194 grant, covering infrastructure and training.

• Community Workshops: Costs for facilitators, venues, and outreach (e.g., farmers’ market training) range from $5,000–$15,000 per event.

Grant Funding

Grant programs often provide more funding than is directly required for the targeted initiative, generating surpluses that cities can redirect to other municipal operations. This process creates a cycle of dependency that can perpetuate the pursuit of additional grants. For example, grant programs like Campeones para la Comunidad subsidize city operations by generating surpluses and freeing up general funds. The $389,194 Safe Routes grant in 2012, exceeding costs by $314,194, likely supported city-wide infrastructure like parks or streets. From 2010–2025, 49% of Campeones’ $1.769 million funding came from grants, reducing the city’s $905,000 contribution and enabling spending on police, libraries, or administrative costs. This creates a “treadmill” where cities chase grants to sustain revenue, as Healthy RC’s success led to more health equity applications. However, this risks dependency, distorted priorities toward grant-eligible projects, and administrative bloat ($189,000 on consultants), potentially neglecting core services.

Grant funding streams have ensured Healthy RC’s viability but raise questions about accountability and potential bias in resource allocation, particularly when grants favor high-visibility youth programs.

• City of Rancho Cucamonga: General fund supports staff and operations, with millions allocated to Healthy RC since 2008 (exact total undisclosed).

• Federal/State Grants: HKHC grant (pre-2014) funded initial staff and programs; $389,194 Safe Routes to School grant; Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds supported COVID-19 relief tied to Healthy RC.

• Private Foundations: Dairy Council of California awarded a $5,000 Let’s Eat Healthy Community Grant in 2023 for youth cooking programs.

• Nonprofit Partners: Inland Empire United Way funded the “Double Bucks” program for farmers’ markets, matching $50 per family.

The Trump administration’s executive orders, starting January 20, 2025, to eliminate federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs have significantly disrupted grant subsidies that supported initiatives like the city’s Healthy RC programs, including the Youth Leaders initiative. These orders, such as EO 14148 and EO 14151, mandate the termination of equity-related grants and contracts because they promote class-division and victimhood based on discriminatory systemic racism theory. The EOs explicitly target funding for programs advancing DEI goals, which include community health efforts, like Healthy RC. Healthy RC’s reliance on grants could be jeopardized, as federal agencies are now directed to review and potentially cancel grants containing DEI goals. This funding freeze, coupled with the broader effect on private and state-level DEI initiatives could force the city to either find alternative funding, scale back programs or cancel them altogether.

Training Providers and Speakers

Healthy RC relies on city staff, nonprofit corporations, and external consultants to deliver training, with a focus on systemic racism theory and mental health for residents and youth. Some providers and speakers include:

• City of Rancho Cucamonga (Healthy RC Staff):

  • Coordinates programs, facilitates workshops, and trains Youth Leaders in leadership, policy advocacy, and mental health awareness (e.g., resilience, anti-bullying).

  • Speakers:

    • Joanna Marrufo: Youth advisor, led cooking workshops on resilience and healthy eating.

    • Michael Parmer: City staff, facilitated community engagement, emphasizing empathy and compassion.

• San Antonio Community Hospital:

  • Provided registered dietitians for the Healthy RC Dining Program, training residents and youth on healthy eating to address obesity and bullying-related stress.

• External Consultants:

  • Beth Johnson: Reiki Master, taught mindfulness and stress management in mental health workshops, addressing resilience and bullying.

  • Crystal Muljadi: Youth Leader, spoke on self-awareness and wellness, promoting compassion and anti-bullying.

These providers align with DEI goals, addressing systemic racism theory (e.g., food access in Latino communities) and mental health (e.g., trauma-informed training). However, the reliance on city staff and select nonprofits may limit diverse perspectives, reinforcing favoritism in program delivery.

Propaganda Awards Fuel Questionable Image

Healthy RC and its nonprofit corporation partners have received numerous awards, often framed as recognition for health equity but criticized as propaganda to bolster the city’s image and secure funding. Key awards include:

• San Antonio Community Hospital:

• Award: Recognized by The White House “Let’s Move!” initiative for Healthy RC Dining Program, promoting healthy eating.

• Propaganda Aspect: The award amplified the hospital’s and city’s reputation and served as a public relations tool to attract grants and political support.

• Nonprofit Status: Nonprofit hospital.

• Healthy RC Initiative (City-Led, Nonprofit Partners):

• Awards:

• National League of Cities recognition for Let’s Move! Cities, Towns, and Counties (LMCTC)

• KaBOOM! Playful City USA designation (3 consecutive years) for play space initiatives.

• Helen Putnam Award for Healthy RC Youth Leaders program, cited as a best practice.

These awards promoted through city media such as the Grapevine newsletter, serve by prioritizing high-visibility outcomes involving youth media campaigns, over addressing actual structural issues like poverty; they align more with political agendas to showcase Rancho Cucamonga as a health leader.

Legal Aspects and Constitutional Implications

Healthy RC’s programs, particularly those involving youth, raise constitutional concerns, primarily under the First Amendment (free speech) and Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection), due to potential compelled speech, viewpoint discrimination, or unequal access. The program’s structure and favoritism suggest vulnerabilities.

First Amendment Concerns:

• Compelled Speech: Youth Leaders’ public service announcements (e.g., “It’s OK to Air Your Dirty Laundry,”) and advocacy for city policies (e.g., healthy vending,) may pressure teens to align with Healthy RC’s anti-racism and mental health narratives. Requiring affirmations of specific ideologies (e.g., systemic racism’s role in health disparities) could violate First Amendment protections against compelled speech, as seen in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) and Janus v. AFSCME (2018). While participation appears voluntary, academic or social incentives (e.g., leadership roles, media exposure) may create implicit coercion, especially for youth seeking college opportunities.

• Viewpoint Discrimination: The selective nature of Youth Leaders’ recruitment may exclude teens with dissenting views (e.g., those skeptical of systemic racism frameworks), potentially constituting viewpoint discrimination, prohibited under Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015).

Fourteenth Amendment Concerns:

• Equal Protection: Political favoritism in access, favoring well-connected or high-performing youth, may violate equal protection by disproportionately excluding marginalized teens (e.g., from southwest Rancho Cucamonga). This mirrors systemic racism’s barriers, as Latino and low-income youth face language and socioeconomic hurdles. Such disparities could be challenged under Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), requiring programs to justify differential treatment.

• Due Process: Vague selection criteria for Youth Leaders (undisclosed in public records) could raise procedural due process concerns if applicants are denied without clear justification, per Mathews v. Eldridge (1976).

• Potential Lawsuits: While no lawsuits yet specifically target Healthy RC, the program’s similarities to litigated cases (e.g., Parents Defending Education v. Chicago, where mandatory anti-racism training was challenged for compelled speech) suggest risks — This position holds for the city’s RC Drive DEI program, too.

Constitutionally, Healthy RC risks First Amendment violations through implicit coercion, selective processes and Fourteenth Amendment challenges, which invite scrutiny. Furthermore, the programs future viability, because it is based on discriminatory DEI, can be challenged through Trump’s aforementioned executive orders.

Also, residents have to ask why the city is engaged in programs that put the city at potential risk with ulterior motives that seem to support the unethical benefit to garner more-and-more grant money to subsidize city operations.