SAN FRANCISCO — Sheryl Evans Davis, who led the San Francisco Human Rights Commission from 2016 until her resignation in 2024, is facing serious criminal allegations tied to the handling of public money intended for community investment programs.

Prosecutors allege Davis improperly directed at least $4.5 million in city funds to Collective Impact, a nonprofit with close ties to her past leadership and personal life. The allegations have intensified scrutiny of how San Francisco managed one of its most visible equity-focused funding efforts.

The money at the center of the case was tied to the Dream Keeper Initiative, a program launched under former Mayor London Breed as part of a broader effort to redirect public resources toward housing, economic opportunity, arts, and support services for Black residents.

Authorities say Davis steered money to Collective Impact, a nonprofit she once led before taking over the city commission. Prosecutors also allege that James Spingola, who managed the organization and reportedly shared a residence and financial ties with Davis, played a central role in the arrangement.

The case extends beyond Collective Impact. Prosecutors say Davis also approved contracts that benefited people close to her, including arrangements involving family members. One such allegation involves contracts tied to the Homeless Children’s Network, which investigators say paid Davis’s son about $140,000 as an independent contractor.

District Attorney Brooke Jenkins has framed the case as a major breach of public trust, arguing that taxpayer dollars meant to support vulnerable communities were instead exposed to alleged self-dealing and conflicts of interest.

The controversy gained momentum after reporting and audits raised alarms over questionable spending, helping trigger Davis’s resignation and a broader corruption investigation. Her defense has argued that city leadership bears responsibility as well, pointing to weak oversight, poor structure, and repeated requests for stronger financial supervision during the rollout of the program.

The case now stands as a broader test of how large-scale public equity initiatives are managed, monitored, and protected from abuse. As the legal proceedings move forward, the scandal is likely to keep pressure on San Francisco officials to show that ambitious promises around justice and reinvestment are matched by transparency and control.