Common use of County of Riverside Clause in Contracts

County of Riverside. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the Youth Accountability Team (“YAT”) program, a juvenile diversion program run by Riverside County (the “County”). The lawsuit raised numerous concerns over the penalties imposed on children accused of certain actions like school misbehavior. The lawsuit alleged that the YAT program had placed thousands of children on onerous YAT probation contracts on the basis of common teenage behavior, including for children’s “persistent or habitual refusal to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities” under California Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) Section 601(b). The lawsuit further alleged that the YAT program violated children’s due process rights by failing to give them adequate notice of their rights and failing to provide them with counsel. The lawsuit further alleged that the program imposed intrusive and unconstitutional contract terms that allowed officers to search children in violation of their rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and imposed supervision conditions that restricted their expressive and associational rights. The lawsuit also alleged that the YAT program’s referral practices led to racial disparities. The lawsuit primarily requested declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal damages and Plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit requested that the court: • declare Section 601(b) WIC, as well as the County’s application of Section 601 WIC, to be unconstitutionally vague and prohibit the County from enforcing Section 601 WIC in the future; • declare that the County’s placement of children on YAT probation without providing adequate notice and under coercive conditions to violate due process; • prohibit the County from placing children on YAT contracts without due process of law and without providing access to an attorney; • declare the County’s searches of homes, belongings, and persons and drug testing to violate children’s rights to be free from unreasonable searches; • prohibit the County from conducting similar searches in the future; • declare that the County had violated children’s free speech and associational rights by prohibiting children from associating with anyone not approved of by the County; • prohibit the County from prohibiting children placed on YAT from associating with others not approved of by the County; • declare that the County’s operation of the YAT program has a significant adverse impact on Black and Latinx children in violation of California Government Code section 11135; • prohibit the County from continuing to operate YAT program in a way that violated California Government Code section 11135; and • award nominal damages in the amount of one dollar for each violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and also Plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees. The County denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing. Plaintiffs filed this case in the United States District Court in the Central District of California on July 1, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Court held an initial scheduling conference, setting August 5, 2019 as the last date to conduct a settlement conference, which the court later extended to September 4, 2019. After conducting an extensive series of settlement conferences, the parties have reached a settlement of the claims. This notice provides details of that settlement. THE PARTIES: Plaintiffs in this case are three youth who represent a class of youth and a youth-mentoring organization in Riverside County. You are a member of the “plaintiff class” if you were ever referred to the YAT program under California Welfare & Instructions Code (WIC) Section 601. You can be a class member even if you were never placed on a YAT contract. “Section 601” usually includes behavior that is a “status offense,” meaning that it’s only an offense if done by someone under the age of 18. Examples of that kind of “offense” are being defiant to your teachers or parent, or truancy or curfew violations. If you were referred to the YAT program by your school, you may have been referred for a “Section 601” offense. If you don’t know if you are a class member, you can contact [XXX] Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., is a non-profit community-based organization that provides mentoring and leadership development services to children of color in Riverside County. The defendants in this case are the County of Riverside, Chief Probation Officer for the Riverside County Department of Probation Xxxx Xxxx, and Deputy Chief Probation Officer for the Riverside County Department of Probation Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx. The individual defendants are sued only in their official capacities. ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT: The following is only a summary of the provisions of the settlement. The written agreement between the parties has the full terms of the proposed settlement that was preliminarily approved by the Court. There are instructions below if you want more information about this settlement, including a copy of the complete agreement. The settlement is for non-monetary relief only, which means that the parties are agreeing Riverside County will stop certain actions, continue other certain actions that they already take, and will take certain additional actions to ensure compliance with children’s rights and to address the claims in the lawsuit. The settlement does not entitle you or any member of the Plaintiff Class to money damages (which means a cash payment). THE CONTENTS OF THE SETTLEMENT: The proposed settlement covers the following areas:

County of Riverside. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the Youth Accountability Team (“YAT”) program, a juvenile diversion program run by Riverside County (the “County”). The lawsuit raised numerous concerns over the penalties imposed on children accused of certain actions like school misbehavior. The lawsuit alleged that the YAT program had placed thousands of children on onerous YAT probation contracts on the basis of common teenage behavior, including for children’s “persistent or habitual refusal to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities” under California Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) Section 601(b). The lawsuit further alleged that the YAT program violated children’s due process rights by failing to give them adequate notice of their rights and failing to provide them with counsel. The lawsuit further alleged that the program imposed intrusive and unconstitutional contract terms that allowed officers to search children in violation of their rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and imposed supervision conditions that restricted their expressive and associational rights. The lawsuit also alleged that the YAT program’s referral practices led to racial disparities. The lawsuit primarily requested declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal damages and Plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit requested that the court: • declare Section 601(b) WIC, as well as the County’s application of Section 601 WIC, to be unconstitutionally vague and prohibit the County from enforcing Section 601 WIC in the future; • declare that the County’s placement of children on YAT probation without providing adequate notice and under coercive conditions to violate due process; • prohibit the County from placing children on YAT contracts without due process of law and without providing access to an attorney; • declare the County’s searches of homes, belongings, and persons and drug testing to violate children’s rights to be free from unreasonable searches; • prohibit the County from conducting similar searches in the future; • declare that the County had violated children’s free speech and associational rights by prohibiting children from associating with anyone not approved of by the County; • prohibit the County from prohibiting children placed on YAT from associating with others not approved of by the County; • declare that the County’s operation of the YAT program has a significant adverse impact on Black and Latinx children in violation of California Government Code section 11135; • prohibit the County from continuing to operate YAT program in a way that violated California Government Code section 11135; and • award nominal damages in the amount of one dollar for each violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and also Plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees. The County denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing. Plaintiffs filed this case in the United States District Court in the Central District of California on July 1, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Court held an initial scheduling conference, setting August 5, 2019 as the last date to conduct a settlement conference, which the court later extended to September 4, 2019. After conducting an extensive series of settlement conferences, the parties have reached a settlement of the claims. This notice provides details of that settlement. THE PARTIES: Plaintiffs in this case are three youth who represent a class of youth and a youth-mentoring organization in Riverside County. You are a member of the “plaintiff class” if you were ever referred to the YAT program under California Welfare & Instructions Code (WIC) Section 601. You can be a class member even if you were never placed on a YAT contract. “Section 601” usually includes behavior that is a “status offense,” meaning that it’s only an offense if done by someone under the age of 18. Examples of that kind of “offense” are being defiant to your teachers or parent, or truancy or curfew violations. If you were referred to the YAT program by your school, you may have been referred for a “Section 601” offense. If you don’t know if you are a class member, you can contact [XXX] Sigma Beta Xi, Inc., is a non-profit community-based organization that provides mentoring and leadership development services to children of color in Riverside County. The defendants in this case are the County of Riverside, Chief Probation Officer for the Riverside County Department of Probation Xxxx Xxxx, and Deputy Chief Probation Officer for the Riverside County Department of Probation Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx. The individual defendants are sued only in their official capacities. ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT: The following is only a summary of the provisions of the settlement. The written agreement between the parties has the full terms of the proposed settlement that was preliminarily approved by the Court. There are instructions below if you want more information about this settlement, including a copy of the complete agreement. The settlement is for non-monetary relief only, which means that the parties are agreeing Riverside County will stop certain actions, continue Case 5:18-cv-01399-JGB-JEM Document 57-2 Filed 07/24/19 Page 47 of 58 Page ID #:681 other certain actions that they already take, and will take certain additional actions to ensure compliance with children’s rights and to address the claims in the lawsuit. The settlement does not entitle you or any member of the Plaintiff Class to money damages (which means a cash payment). THE CONTENTS OF THE SETTLEMENT: The proposed settlement covers the following areas: