An audit released earlier this week has brought to light significant issues regarding Dallas’ grant monitoring process, following an unsettling investigation surrounding the city’s lead removal program.
The investigation by The Dallas Morning News conducted in September 2024 revealed that only four homes received assistance from a federal grant awarded in 2019, despite more than 70 residents expressing interest and approximately 50 homes being inspected for potential aid.
City officials initially set ambitious goals, hoping to renovate 130 houses using the awarded funds, only to return most of the grant money unspent.
This discovery propelled District 13 Council Member Gay Donnell Willis and District 1 Council Member Chad West to advocate for the inclusion of the lead removal program within the Fiscal Year 2025 Audit Work Plan.
The audit pointed out several challenges the program faced, such as difficulties in locating qualifying property owners, the turnover of staff and leadership, the absence of a signed and executed grant agreement, and significant hurdles in finding certified contractors.
Dallas City Manager Kimberly Tolbert acknowledged these challenges in a memorandum issued on Monday, stating that they contributed to the program’s failure to meet expectations.
However, Tolbert noted that city management does not classify these auditor observations as high-risk, emphasizing the need for improvements while agreeing to adopt the auditor’s suggestions for better future performance.
The audit employed risk ratings to assess potential threats to the city’s financial integrity and operational efficacy, rating the current findings as high-risk.
In response to this situation, residents like Tonya Skinner, whose home was approved for the program, expressed their frustration. Skinner stated, “And now what? What are they going to do? I still have lead in my house.”
Unfortunately, neither Tolbert nor Cynthia Rogers-Ellickson, the director of the Department of Housing and Community Development, responded to media requests for comments.
Additionally, Council Member West was unavailable due to travel, and Council Member Willis did not reply to inquiries from The News.
The detailed 26-page audit evaluated issues that impeded the program’s effectiveness, the manner in which participants were informed regarding the challenges and delays, and the comparison of Dallas’ execution techniques with other cities.
It also identified 19 other grant programs, totaling over $68 million, that have lagged in execution as of March. In addition to the lead removal program, two separate grant initiatives were closed, retaining most of their allocations unspent.
For instance, a federal 911 grant amounting to $3,245,088 was terminated due to pandemic-related supply chain delays that hindered the department’s procurement of necessary equipment, leading to zero expenditures.
Another program, a $700,000 grant from the Federal Communications Commission, was closed following the agency’s request because of funding limitations, with only about $7,200 utilized.
The auditing agenda began in 2018 when the Dallas Housing and Revitalization Department secured a $2.3 million federal grant aimed at removing lead from homes. The focus was primarily on residences built before 1978, particularly those occupied by children under the age of six, who are more vulnerable to lead exposure.
By May 2019, grant funds became available, culminating in an introduction of the program to the Dallas City Council’s Quality of Life committee in August 2020.
Ultimately, the program ceased operations at the end of 2023. A financial report submitted to the federal government recorded that approximately $400,000 was spent from the grant — mostly on administrative costs — while a staggering $1.8 million remained unused.
Of the expenditures, $42,000 was allocated to home repairs and $75,000 to lead hazard and blood testing.
Initially, when applying for the federal grant, the Dallas Housing Department estimated that about 38,000 homes were eligible for assistance concerning lead abatement. Yet the audit highlighted a mere 101 expressions of interest in the program, 75 applications, 56 home inspections, and ultimately four homes that were repaired.
The audit report, however, fails to specify the number of homes from the inspected 56 that could qualify for aid, nor how many did not meet the program criteria.
Skinner’s home, tested for lead issues in October 2021, is indicative of the struggles faced by many prospective beneficiaries. Although her grandchildren had low blood lead levels, certain areas of her home registered dangerously high leads. For nearly two years, she received no updates from the city regarding repairs.
During that time, Skinner removed all her furniture from her living room and bedroom at the instruction of the city inspectors, anxiously awaiting information about when contractors would commence the lead removal process.
In November 2023, she finally received a letter from the city — one that declared her application canceled as the program ended due to a shortage of certified lead contractors. “I waited almost two years, and nothing happened,” Skinner lamented, adding, “At least now they [the city] are admitting that they didn’t do right.”
Despite her disappointment, Skinner said she plans to explore other city programs aimed at lead removal, although she remains skeptical about how long the process will take and if the city will deliver on its promises this time.
The audit specifically noted the city’s challenges in locating certified contractors, revealing that only 11 certified lead abatement workers and five certified supervisors operate across Dallas County.
Interestingly, four out of the five comparable cities surveyed also reported similar struggles with finding well-qualified contractors to carry out necessary repairs.
Contrastingly, Waco, another first-time lead removal recipient, managed to complete repairs on 36 homes by utilizing contractors from the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
Moreover, the audit mentioned that many residences built prior to 1978 required more comprehensive repairs, adding to the complication of the program.
The city did establish a partnership with a certified lead abatement contractor possessing prior experience from another city. Still, communication problems arose, with the contractor indicating to Dallas officials that they were unwilling to conduct lead abatement work unless preexisting damages to properties were remedied first.
This included issues such as holes in floors that were unrelated to the lead concerns.
Further exacerbating the situation, the audit pointed out that communication between city staff and council members was neither clear nor timely. Staff reductions and unmet performance targets remained unreported, which delayed required updates on progress.
These communication lapses subsequently necessitated committee requests that prompted further discussions about program challenges and grant stipulations when progress reports fell short of stated expectations.
The auditor’s office conducted a survey involving 20 of the 101 applicants to gauge their overall experience, especially regarding communication during the program. Out of these, only 11 property owners responded.
The results revealed an average satisfaction rating of only 2.9 out of 5, where 5 indicated the highest level of satisfaction.
The predominant reasons cited for dissatisfaction included the excessive time and effort expended throughout the process without tangible benefits or dissatisfaction with the repairs that were completed.
Conversely, the few who noted positive experiences highlighted their appreciation for the program’s existence and the potential for future repairs.
Ultimately, seven individuals expressed interest in reapplying for assistance from the city.
In light of the findings, the audit has recommended that the housing department enhance and solidify its practices and procedures for future grants. Recommendations include improving outreach efforts and maintaining better communication with residents, potential applicants, and the city council.
Furthermore, it stressed the importance of refining grant reporting methods to detect lagging programs efficiently.
In response to the audit and its findings, Tolbert stated that the Office of Budget and Management Services had taken steps to adopt a new financial monitoring system, actively engaging in developing enhanced reports designed to facilitate better continuous oversight across a range of grants and granting agencies.
image source from：dallasnews
