San Diego County brings in outside auditors to tighten contracting controls after nonprofit executive faces felony charges
County reviews contractor oversight after allegations of misuse of public funds
San Diego County has moved to bring in outside auditing support to reassess how it awards, monitors and renews contracts with nonprofit service providers, following felony charges against a former executive at a county contractor tied to overdose-prevention work.
The reassessment follows criminal allegations involving Amy Knox, a former chief operating officer at the Harm Reduction Coalition of San Diego. Prosecutors allege Knox misappropriated public funds tied to county contracts, and authorities have described alleged personal spending paid from those funds. The case has drawn attention to screening and oversight practices used when public dollars flow through nonprofit operators delivering health and social services.
Timeline: contract cancellations, charges, and renewed scrutiny
June 2025: County officials canceled the Harm Reduction Coalition’s county contracts, after internal concerns and compliance questions intensified around the organization’s financial management and performance.
February 19, 2026: The San Diego County District Attorney announced felony charges against Knox, describing alleged theft of more than $130,000 and noting a prior felony conviction disclosed in court records.
Late February–March 2026: County supervisors publicly pressed senior administrators for details on how the county monitored the contracts, how potential conflicts were flagged, and why earlier controls did not prevent alleged misuse.
What the internal review found
An internal county review completed before the criminal case became public described gaps in contract administration and oversight. Among the issues raised were questions about internal controls and the handling of potential conflicts of interest in subcontracting arrangements, as well as how quickly red flags were escalated inside the county structure. The review also underscored the complexity of county contracting in public health, where nonprofit networks and subcontractors may be used to deliver time-sensitive services.
The contracting breakdown has become a test case for whether the county’s existing monitoring tools can detect financial irregularities early enough to protect public funds while maintaining continuity of critical services.
Why outside auditing support is being added
County contracting is typically managed through department-level administrators and internal audit functions. In this case, county leadership has sought outside audit assistance to evaluate contracting processes more broadly, including vendor vetting, monitoring requirements, documentation standards, and escalation pathways when staff detect anomalies.
The county’s shift reflects a dual objective: strengthening financial accountability while limiting disruptions to public programs that depend on contracted providers, including behavioral health and overdose-response efforts.
Key questions county leaders are pressing
Whether background checks and responsibility reviews were consistently applied to key contractor personnel before contract awards and renewals.
How the county verified deliverables, spending eligibility, and supporting documentation during active contract periods.
Whether contract administrators had adequate training, authority and tools to intervene quickly when warning signs emerged.
How subcontractor relationships and potential conflicts of interest were identified and documented.
The outside audit work is expected to inform changes to procedures and oversight practices used across county departments that rely heavily on service contracts, including health and human services programs. County officials have indicated the contracting review will continue alongside the ongoing criminal proceedings.