Months after prosecutors filed felony charges against the ex-COO of a former county contractor for allegedly misappropriating public money, an outside review of county contracting practices found that the county needs to do a better job overseeing and vetting high-risk contracts.

The report doesn’t directly address the elephant in the room: how a former leader of the Harm Reduction of San Diego managed to allegedly embezzle public funds – or how insufficient county oversight may have allowed it.

What it does is highlight the county’s shortcomings when it comes to overseeing hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts with outside organizations it hires to deliver services. The review called for the county to provide more training for county staff, better documentation to allow for more accountability and a system that allows county staff to rapidly escalate contract issues to county leadership. It also called for the county to invest more resources in overseeing more risky contracts like the Harm Reduction Coalition one, rather than apply the same vetting to all its contracts.

For example, a contract might be considered more risky if it’s a multi-year public service contract in a discipline like harm reduction that county government historically hadn’t worked in.

The county revealed in March that it would pay certified public accounting and advisory firm Eide Bailly LLP up to $68,000 for what Chief Administrative Officer Ebony Shelton deemed a “targeted review of contracting processes.”

County officials said Monday they are now evaluating the recommendations in the report dated June 24. They didn’t elaborate on specific changes or plans, or when they expect to make them.

“Our team is committed to high procurement and contracting standards, and this report will help us strengthen oversight and make improvements where needed,” Shelton wrote in a press release.

The report comes about a year after the county cancelled contracts with the nonprofit Harm Reduction Coalition to deploy opioid overdose reversal drug naloxone and to test street drugs for deadly fentanyl. It also follows prosecutors’ allegations that ex-Harm Reduction Coalition COO Amy Knox misappropriated at least $210,000 in public funds for everything from plastic surgeries to family vacations and forged an invoice to the county. It also follows Voice of San Diego’s reporting documenting a whistleblower’s early 2023 warning to county officials that Knox had previously served time for embezzlement – and the county’s move to award a second contract to the organization she held lead the following year.

County spokespeople have said the county relies on contractors to conduct their own background checks and that criminal histories aren’t necessarily disqualifying. They have also noted that the county conducted an audit of its initial contract with the Harm Reduction Coalition after the 2023 whistleblower report.

The Eide Bailly report doesn’t delve into the Harm Reduction Coalition debacle or weigh in on county criminal background check policies. It also doesn’t spotlight issues in specific county departments that might have led to challenges with the two Harm Reduction contracts that included the nonprofit’s failures to pay subcontractors and staff.

“The purpose of the assessment directed by the county is to improve oversight, not to make findings regarding an active criminal investigation,” county spokesperson Tammy Glenn wrote in an email. “It examined purchasing and contracting processes across our entire organization and makes recommendations to ensure accountability to the community we serve.”

She said the county is also continuing to cooperate with the District Attorney’s Office investigation.

In its review, consultants wrote that the county has “a sound procurement foundation with defined selection procedures, approval authorities, and training infrastructure” but noted that post-award contracting monitoring was “more decentralized and unevenly applied across departments.

“As a result, the county has an opportunity to move from a collection of department-level practices to a more cohesive enterprise governance model that better aligns monitoring expectations, documentation, reporting, and accountability with contract risk,” the reviewers wrote after reviewing a slew of county policies and interviewing with county officials.

In other words, the county’s process for hiring contractors is solid, but it needs to do a better job monitoring them. And the county should roll out countywide standards and oversight that allow county staff and leaders to more swiftly flag problems over the department-by-department approach it’s largely taking now. It should also prioritize oversight of contracts and contractors considered more complicated or challenging over more straightforward ones that don’t require the same attention.

Consultants spotlighted the lack of countywide monitoring of its contracts, standardized documentation and communication about them that the firm concluded gives county leaders limited visibility into challenges. They also noted that the county should adjust its oversight based on the complexity and risks associated with specific contracts.

“During interviews, participants indicated that contracts for minor repair and maintenance activities are generally expected to follow the same contract management processes used for more complex agreements, such as countywide information technology outsourcing arrangements,” consultants wrote. “This approach may result in monitoring levels that are not aligned with contract risk or complexity and may affect the use of county resources.”

The consultants also highlighted an apparent systemic challenge that matches up with one that Knox’s attorney recently flagged with Harm Reduction Coalition contract oversight: the county’s reliance on invoice audits over more thorough reviews.

“Due diligence practices conducted by the (contracting officer’s representatives) do not consistently extend beyond invoice review and documentation, which may limit the identification of integrity, reputation, or compliance risks associated with contractors,” Eide Bailly wrote.

Consultants recommended the county implement a fraud and improper payment checklist that helps staff identify invoice anomalies and change order patterns, increase reviews for “higher-risk contractors” and “set a referral/escalation pathway for suspected fraud.”

They also called for the county to set standards for documentation and records storage to ensure proper monitoring of contractors and hold staff accountable if they fail to follow county policies.

“At the enterprise level, there was no consistently noted minimum expectation of file storage and structures with accountability measures for violations,” the consultants wrote.

Spokespeople for Supervisors Paloma Aguirre and Joel Anderson, who co-chair a board subcommittee focused on evaluating county contracts, said they may discuss the report at an upcoming meeting. The Fiscal Transparency & Accountability Ad-Hoc Subcommittee’s next meeting is Aug. 11.