Mr. Jennings, what is “yet another SF nonprofit scandal”?

Image by Rakesh A on Flickr

Last week, San Francisco taxpayers were horrified to clue in that local org SF Safe—which receives millions annually from the Police Dept—has been forging invoices, stiffing vendors, and reimbursing lavish staff expenses (Tahoe vacations and limo rides, anyone?). SF Standard rounds up the fiasco, and asks why cities aren't doing the work to, you know, properly oversee affiliated nonprofits.

The allegations of financial mismanagement piling up against a San Francisco nonprofit that enjoys millions in taxpayer funding are nothing new for the charity's freshly ousted executive director. Her tenure began on the heels of controversy.

Before getting hired to lead San Francisco SAFE six years ago, Kyra Worthy was the executive director of For Richmond, a now-defunct East Bay nonprofit that contracted with the West Contra Costa Unified School District to run educational programs for Black students.

What happened next raises questions about how effectively public entities monitor the nonprofits they fund and whether they have a responsibility to vet their leaders.

Sign up to receive updates on Opp Now articles. Click HERE.

In September 2017, an investigation by the school district found that For Richmond had "submitted false invoices and supporting documents,” according to a letter detailing its findings. The district ended its relationship with the nonprofit and demanded it return nearly $235,000.

"For Richmond failed to complete many services and, in some instances, did not perform them at all, despite receiving payment for such services from the district," an associate superintendent for the district wrote in the letter to Worthy, which was obtained by The Standard.

It was only months later that Worthy landed her job in January 2018 as the executive director of SF SAFE, a longtime nonprofit partner of the San Francisco Police Department, which played a role in her hiring process, according to the president of the nonprofit’s board.

The position, leading a nonprofit that seeks to build trust in the police, made Worthy a useful ally on public safety for Mayor London Breed. It put her in charge of an increasingly large budget funded by taxpayers and donors such as crypto billionaire Chris Larsen. And it let her enjoy an industrial-chic office in the Mission that made Police Chief Bill Scott “jealous,” he joked at a ribbon-cutting ceremony held for the new workspace.

But all that power was suddenly stripped away in a matter of days this week, when allegations of financial mismanagement at SF SAFE burst into public view and ultimately toppled Worthy.

First, a report by the Controller’s Office concluded that SF SAFE had improperly billed SFPD for luxury gift boxes, valet parking at an exclusive club and limo rides on a trip to Lake Tahoe. Then, vendors who did business with the nonprofit came forward with allegations that SF SAFE stiffed them on at least $1.2 million worth of bills. Finally, an internal investigation inside the nonprofit discovered depleted bank accounts—and indications of possible check forgery. …

“The controller’s audit is very clear—repeatedly—that the financial controls within the police department are severely lacking,” said Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who called for one of the hearings. “The question then becomes, are they lacking because their accounting department sucks? Or is there an element here of the relationship between SF SAFE and the department was too cozy, and they looked the other way because it was ‘all in the family.’”

This article originally appeared in the San Francisco Standard. Read the whole thing here.

Related:

• Unconvincing: defense of non profits disappoints

• Pressure builds for City to make nonprofits more accountable

• Liccardo expresses worries about nonprofits' lack of accountability

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

Sign up to receive updates on Opp Now articles

Email Address:

First Name:

Last Name:

Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.