By Ronda Watson Barber
OhioMBE Publisher
Columbus City Schools recently released its FY25 LEDE Spend Report, touting a 17.9% participation rate for Local Economically Disadvantaged Enterprises (LEDEs). While the district celebrates this figure as progress, it still falls short of the 20% goal—and raises serious questions about equity, transparency, and accountability in how public dollars are spent.
According to the district’s own data, total controllable spending for FY25 was $232.3 million, with $41.5 million awarded to LEDE-certified firms. That’s a 37% increase over FY24, when LEDE spending totaled $30.5 million. Franklin County vendors received $68.7 million, representing 29.6% of total controllable spending.
However, these numbers don’t tell the full story of who actually benefits—or who continues to be left behind.
As someone who has met with district leadership and the Outreach Office multiple times, I have offered solutions, proposals, and constructive feedback to strengthen the LEDE program. I’ve shown up at meetings, submitted written recommendations, and shared ways to build meaningful inclusion for small, minority, and women-owned businesses.
Instead of collaboration, my work and ideas were later incorporated into a district RFP without acknowledgment or partnership. Such behavior is, quite frankly, grimely and unprofessional. If students engaged in this type of conduct, it would be considered plagiarism and a failure of integrity. It should not be tolerated from district leadership entrusted with public funds and community partnerships.
Behind the polished percentages lies a system that continues to underserve the very businesses the LEDE program was designed to empower.
Good Faith Contracting Efforts
The district credits internal collaboration for its improved numbers. But what specific good-faith efforts were actually made to achieve these results?
How can prime and general contractors meet their good-faith requirements when the LEDE vendor list remains inaccessible to the public? Without access to that list, diverse vendors are effectively locked out before they even have a chance to compete.
Outreach and Inclusion
The report lists how much was spent, but it never explains how vendors were engaged. With the Outreach Office dormant since March 2024 and no evidence of meaningful engagement, how can the district claim to have reached Black- and women-owned firms?
The superintendent recently stated that the Outreach Office’s “foundation is being built.” Is this simply a talking point? How can an office that has existed for more than two decades suddenly require its foundation to be rebuilt—while all outreach activities and progress have come to a halt?
Adding to the concern, the new Outreach Coordinator—after nine months with little measurable progress—was assigned a paid consultant to help him perform the very job he was hired to do. This decision raises serious questions about oversight, accountability, and how taxpayer dollars are being used to duplicate responsibilities rather than produce results.
What intentional steps, if any, were taken to notify LEDE vendors about upcoming opportunities?
Data Transparency
The report openly admits that subcontractor spend is tracked manually, meaning accuracy depends on voluntary reporting and manual data entry. How can the public have confidence in figures that are neither automated nor verified?
Even more concerning: the LEDE vendor tracking system remains decommissioned nearly two years later. Transparency cannot exist without reliable data.
Disparities in Spend
The FY25 report shows the following breakdown by category:
| LEDE Category | Total LEDE Spend | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| African-American | $15,940,420.63 | 38% |
| Caucasian | $21,745,497.79 | 52% |
| Hispanic | $1,680,737.90 | 4% |
| Asian Pacific | $953,282.79 | 2% |
| Disadvantaged Business | $851,596.57 | 2% |
| Female | $21,557.48 | 0% |
| Indian Subcontinent | $318,119.19 | 1% |
| Native American & 8(a)** | $10,766.00 | 0% |
In a majority-Black district funded by Black taxpayers, these disparities are indefensible.
The summer Capital Improvements report listed $4.6 million spent with African-American firms compared to $17.9 million with Caucasian firms—a dramatic gap that contradicts the district’s stated commitment to equity.
Furthermore, only 29.6% of total controllable spending ($68.7 million) went to Franklin County vendors. That figure includes suburban and countywide spending, not just the City of Columbus. The district has not disclosed how much of this amount went to Columbus-based firms, even though Columbus property owners are the ones paying higher taxes through new levies.
Without clear reporting, taxpayers cannot see how much of their investment actually stays in their own community.
Race Neutrality Without Accountability
The LEDE program is described as race neutral. But neutrality without accountability creates inequity. When results consistently exclude Black and women-owned firms, “neutrality” becomes a shield for maintaining the status quo.
Equity requires intention, access, and transparency—not just percentages on a page.
Department Accountability
Department-level spending further exposes inconsistency—and highlights the ongoing lack of transparency about Black spending.
The district reports that:
- Capital Improvements spent $80.9 million overall, with $25.1 million (31%) going to LEDE vendors.
- Safety & Security spent $3.5 million, with $1.6 million (47%) to LEDE vendors.
- Buildings & Grounds spent $15 million, with 22% LEDE participation.
- Facilities Maintenance spent $547,000, with 30% LEDE participation.
What remains unknown—and unacceptable—is how much of that LEDE spending actually went to Black-owned firms. The district has not published racial or gender breakdowns by department, making it impossible for taxpayers to assess progress or equity.
Based on past reports, however, the Black spend appears alarmingly low—especially within Capital Improvements, where earlier data showed only $4.6 million out of $80.9 million reaching African-American vendors.
The district can’t claim equity while withholding transparency. The Black spend is horrible, and the absence of departmental data only deepens public mistrust.
Percentages alone do not equal progress. Until Columbus City Schools demonstrates genuine outreach, transparent reporting, and departmental accountability, Black- and women-owned businesses—and the communities funding this district—will continue to be left behind.
The Path Forward
After years of meetings, proposals, and promises, another discussion with the Outreach Office feels unnecessary. What’s needed now isn’t another meeting—it’s action, transparency, and leadership.
The behavior of taking community ideas, repackaging them, and claiming ownership is grimely and unprofessional. Would such conduct be acceptable in a classroom from students? Of course not. It should not be acceptable from district leadership either.
The district’s taxpayers, small business owners, and students deserve better.
just my thoughts…rwb
