Former SF SAFE executive sues nonprofit, claiming unpaid wages as agency faces financial misconduct probe

Kyra Worthy, 50, filed a civil lawsuit Friday in San Francisco Superior Court against SF SAFE, a longtime police-funded nonprofit focused on safety and crime prevention, and its former board chair Dan Lawson, seeking about $26,000 in unpaid wages. Worthy says she did not receive her final paycheck or payment for vacation time after she was fired in January 2024, during a period in which the nonprofit was under scrutiny for alleged misuse of public funds. The suit portrays the wage claim as a straightforward labor dispute amid a broader collapse of the organization.

SF SAFE, described by the San Francisco Police Department as a "community engagement arm" of local law enforcement, abruptly shuttered in January 2024 after a wave of financial misconduct allegations. Authorities and city officials subsequently laid out a timeline of alleged improper spending and mismanagement that ultimately depleted the nonprofit’s assets. Worthy’s suit aligns with ongoing public attention to how the nonprofit handled funds it received from both public and private sources.

In parallel with Worthy’s civil filing, state prosecutors have described Worthy as part of a broader criminal inquiry into SF SAFE’s finances. The district attorney’s office has said Worthy faced roughly 34 felonies connected to alleged misuses of more than $700,000 in public money. Worthy has pleaded not guilty to those charges.

Court filings recounted a pattern of expenditures that prosecutors say strained the nonprofit’s finances. They cited a $15,000 Lake Tahoe trip, along with luxury gifts, valet parking at an exclusive club, and limousine services during that excursion, as indicative of the kinds of discretionary spending alleged by investigators. Prosecutors argue that the charity had been drained of its funds by the time Worthy was terminated in January 2024, a claim echoed by city officials examining the broader collapse of SF SAFE.

Worthy’s suit also asserts she did not receive her final paycheck or payment for unused sick or vacation time after her departure. In addition to the wage claim, the filing notes that Worthy endured emotional distress after the dispute, including anxiety, insomnia and depression. The DA’s office has pointed to a pattern of spending that, if proven, could imply that the nonprofit’s resources were diverted from its stated mission.

The timing of SF SAFE’s shutdown coincided with a city investigation into the nonprofit’s finances. The San Francisco Standard reported that the nonprofit’s funds had been used in ways that prompted scrutiny from city agencies and elected officials. Supervisor Aaron Peskin publicly urged cuts to the organization’s funding, saying, “They should not be doing business with her, plain and simple,” in reference to Worthy’s role in the broader controversy.

Specific allocations cited in court records and summaries of the case describe a broader misuse of funds. The district attorney’s office noted that Worthy spent more than $350,000 on luxury gift boxes in 2022 and 2023, as well as nearly $100,000 on an event billed as Candy Explosion in 2023. Prosecutors also said Worthy used funds to cover approximately $8,000 in rent payments, disguising the transactions as community programming. Separately, the documents indicate Worthy spent more than $90,000 in 2019 and 2020 on in-home healthcare for her parents in North Carolina. The DA’s office emphasized that SF SAFE began with cash reserves in excess of $300,000 when Worthy joined the staff in 2018, and that millions of dollars in public and private funding flowed to the nonprofit over the following five years before the group dissolved.

The San Francisco Police Department had described SF SAFE as a government-supported community engagement arm and noted that it had disbursed between $3.8 million and $5.3 million in funding to the nonprofit without routine receipt verification, according to reporting from the San Francisco Standard. The Standard’s coverage highlighted the broader context of how public funds were disbursed to SF SAFE in the years leading up to its closure.

Former employees and others connected to SF SAFE have offered mixed reactions to Worthy’s legal actions. A former staff member, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Worthy’s civil suit was troubling for those who worked at SF SAFE and did not receive final pay or benefits. They also indicated that Worthy’s departure from the organization was described to others as tense and adversarial, though they did not provide further comment on the criminal case.

The Daily Mail published the initial coverage that drew attention to Worthy and the SF SAFE case. The ongoing investigations and court cases regarding SF SAFE’s finances continue to unfold, with officials emphasizing that the nonprofit, once a prominent recipient of public funds for crime-prevention initiatives, remains at the center of questions about governance, fiduciary responsibility, and the use of charitable resources.