Kansas City Business Session: Disparity Study Presentation and Discussion - May 14, 2026

On May 14, 2026, the Kansas City Council held a business session primarily to receive and discuss the final 2026 Disparity Study conducted by Griffin & Strong, presented by the Department of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (CREO). The study examined the city's procurement practices over seven fiscal years (2016–2022) and recommended transitioning from a race- and gender-conscious MWBE program to a race- and gender-neutral small local business enterprise (SLBE) program, citing legal vulnerabilities under the Croson standard. Council members raised questions and concerns about the study's methodology, data sources, and the implications of the recommended shift.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes: The council approved the minutes from the business session of March 5, 2026, by voice vote (all in favor, no opposition).

Discussion Items

• Disparity Study Presentation (2026):

  • Purpose and Methodology: Courtney Clark (Griffin & Strong project manager) and Michelle Clark Jenkins (director of methodology) presented the study, which analyzed $5.8 billion in city spending across five industry categories: construction, architecture/engineering (AE), professional services, other services, and goods/supplies. The study used payment, award, bidder, subcontractor, and vendor data from May 1, 2015, to April 30, 2022 (city fiscal years 2016–2022). The relevant market was the Kansas City MSA (seven counties), where 92–93% of city dollars were spent locally. The methodology included a legal analysis (focused on Croson and Eighth Circuit precedent), policy analysis, anecdotal data (via community sessions, one-on-one interviews, focus groups, and organizational meetings), and statistical disparity analysis comparing utilization to availability.
  • Findings:
    • Prime utilization: MWBEs received 15.5% (construction), 3.5% MBE + 3.0% WBE (AE), 1% total (professional services), 2% total (other services), 2.2% total (goods/supplies). Total utilization (prime + subcontract) improved to 27.7% (construction), 29.7% (AE), 10.7% (professional services), 7.0% (other services), 6.4% (goods/supplies).
    • When comparing availability to utilization statistically, many MWBE groups showed overutilization or statistically insignificant underutilization. Specifically:
      • Construction: No group could support race/gender conscious goals.
      • AE: Asian American, Native American, and women-owned firms showed underutilization.
      • Professional services: African American, Asian American, and Native American firms showed underutilization.
      • Other services: No group.
      • Goods/supplies: Asian American and Hispanic American firms showed underutilization.
    • A no-goals analysis (controlling for race/gender conscious goals) still found overutilization in many groups, suggesting the program's success contributed to the lack of a factual predicate.
  • Recommendations:
    • Transition from race/gender conscious MWBE program to a race/gender neutral SLBE program, noting that most current SLBEs are minorities/women and that the city could achieve similar participation levels while reducing legal risk under Croson.
    • Emphasize a non-discrimination policy, unbundle large contracts, accept reciprocal certification, improve procurement forecasting, limit term contracts to three years with two one-year renewals, require primes to list all solicited subcontractors, streamline paperwork, implement prompt pay provisions, and encourage joint ventures (e.g., requiring joint ventures on projects over $5 million).
    • Data reform: Improve tracking of joint venture data and other metrics.
  • Next Steps: The disparity study will be posted on CREO’s website, followed by a 45-day public comment period (May 15–June 29, 2026). Three community engagement sessions were scheduled: May 27 (Southeast Community Center), June 3 (Northland Neighborhoods Inc.), and June 10 (virtual). A “Speak Easy” web page and FAQ will also be available.

• Council Questions and Concerns:

  • Councilman Duncan asked why the city must change its program if it has shown success; the presenters explained that under Croson, a factual predicate of disparity is required to maintain race/gender conscious programs, and the study no longer supports one in most industry categories.
  • Councilwoman Robinson raised questions about large outliers (e.g., airport, consent decree projects) and the implementation of previous disparity study recommendations. Presenters noted that federal dollars (including airport DBE projects) were excluded from the analysis and that a size-control analysis (removing contracts over $1M and $500K) showed similar results. Councilwoman Robinson also requested a legal memo on DEI and federal agreements.
  • Councilwoman French asked about continued stakeholder engagement and the impact of transitioning to an SLBE program on firms that may no longer qualify due to personal net worth thresholds. Presenters acknowledged gaps in support for firms between small and large and indicated the city is working on a tiered approach.
  • Councilman Rogers asked how utilization can exceed availability; presenters explained it is percentage-based (e.g., 10% availability but 20% utilization yields overutilization).
  • Councilwoman Purti questioned the availability analysis, noting it primarily included certified firms, potentially masking unregistered but qualified minority/women-owned firms. Presenters agreed there is a gap but said the burden of proof under Croson requires certification to count firms. They noted that a D&B analysis (using Hoover data) produced even lower availability numbers.
  • Councilwoman Patterson challenged the study’s validity, arguing that comparing certified firms to non-certified firms ignores systemic advantages and that the large dollar gap between certified and non-certified suggests persistent disparity. Presenters defended the methodology, stating that non-MWBE firms’ utilization matches their availability percentages and that recommendations aim to address systemic barriers.
  • Councilwoman Patterson further asked how the study accounted for firms that were formerly MWBE certified but left the program (e.g., due to bankruptcy or growth). Presenters noted that the private sector analysis and regressions showed that minority/women-owned firms are more likely to be small and less likely to feel “ready, willing, and able” to bid—factors they attributed to marketplace conditions.
  • Councilwoman French summarized that the study appears to show the program is “too successful” to justify race/gender conscious goals, but she echoed concerns that firms may have disappeared from the pool due to underutilization. Presenters recommended that the city continue tracking utilization to see if the factual predicate re-emerges.
  • Councilman Curls asked for comparative data from other cities that have transitioned to SLBE programs. Presenters offered to follow up with examples (e.g., Memphis, Palm Beach County, cities in Florida).
  • Mayor Pro Tem asked how the study concluded no disparity when minority/women firms received only 15.5% of prime construction dollars. Presenters reiterated that disparity is measured by comparing utilization to availability percentages, not by absolute dollar share.

Key Outcomes

• No formal action taken: The council received the disparity study presentation but did not vote to adopt its recommendations. The study is now public for a 45-day comment period.
• Next Steps: The city will hold three community engagement sessions (May 27, June 3, June 10) and accept feedback via the CREO website. The council and city administration will use the study to guide potential policy changes, including a possible transition to an SLBE program.
• Council directives: Councilwoman Robinson requested a legal memo addressing the intersection of federal DEI requirements and the study’s recommendations. Council members indicated they would follow up with additional questions after reviewing the full 329-page report.
• Implementation planning: CREO will conduct a gap analysis to determine which recommendations need new authority and will develop an implementation plan, including budget and staffing considerations.