Does Banning the Box Work?

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

WDAF TV in Kansas City recently reported that City Councilmember Jermaine Reed is seeking to expand the city’s ban-the-box initiative that currently prevents the city from including a box on job applications asking if the applicant has had a felony conviction. Approval of Reed’s proposal would mean that private companies and landlords would be subject to the same restriction in their applications. However, despite good intentions, research tells us that ban-the-box policies hurt minorities.

The WDAF story goes on to point out:

The city has “banned the box” since 2013 and said it’s been a big success. Employers can still do background checks, which could prevent someone from getting hired. But getting rid of the check box can help eliminate the stigma [that would] prevent qualified candidates from getting hired just because of their criminal history.

That is certainly a noble goal. But research from respected universities and public policy organizations casts doubt on the effort’s effectiveness. According to The Atlantic magazine,

. . . banning the box may actually be hurting some of the exact groups of people it was designed to help, according to a few new studies. In a recent paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, Jennifer L. Doleac of the University of Virginia’s Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy and Benjamin Hansen of the University of Oregon looked at how the implementation of ban-the-box policies affected the probability of employment for young, low-skilled, black and Hispanic men. They found that ban-the-box policies decreased the probability of being employed by 5.1 percent for young, low-skilled black men, and 2.9 percent for young, low-skilled Hispanic men.

The left-leaning Brookings Institution found the same, detailing what happens when the felony conviction disclosure is removed:

Employers are forced to use other information that is even less perfect to guess who has a criminal record. The likelihood of having a criminal record varies substantially with demographic characteristics like race and gender. Specifically, black and Hispanic men are more likely than others to have been convicted of a crime: the most recent data suggest that a black man born in 2001 has a 32% chance of serving time in prison at some point during his lifetime, compared with 17% for Hispanic men and just 6% for white men. Employers will guess that black and Hispanic men are more likely to have been in prison, and therefore less likely to be job-ready.

In short, ban-the-box policies are likely hurting minorities.  Hiring discrimination is a thorny problem, but not all such problems have easy or obvious solutions. If your proposed solution is hurting the people it is intended to help, it’s probably time to think about a new approach.

It’s Not Food Deserts, It’s Food Swamps!

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Does how close you live to a grocery store influence your diet? Advocates claim that it does, but research has failed to establish a connection. Nor does the research show a correlation between an area’s obesity rate and access to healthy foods. A new study suggests the real problem is not lack of access to healthy food, but rather an abundance of access to unhealthy food options, like corner markets and fast food.

Researchers at the University of Connecticut’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity have a name for places where unhealthy food is especially easy to find. They call such areas “food swamps,” and they define them as “areas with a high-density of establishments selling high-calorie fast food and junk food, relative to healthier food options.” The abstract from a recent Rudd Center study suggests there are policy implications:

Based on these findings, local government policies such as zoning laws simultaneously restricting access to unhealthy food outlets and incentivizing healthy food retailers to locate in underserved neighborhoods warrant consideration as strategies to increase health equity.

Just as with food deserts, the narrative surrounding food swamps sounds reasonable: If unhealthy food is more convenient and accessible than healthy food, then unhealthy food is what people will eat. But creating policy to address such a situation isn’t simple, nor is it without potential problems. One can imagine municipal leaders rushing off to draft all sorts of new feel-good legislation restricting restaurateurs’ property rights through zoning. The result could be nothing at all, or a raft of unintended consequences.

Ultimately, demand drives markets. Making healthy food more easily available will only help if people want healthy food. That might be why Rollin’ Grocer, whose mission was “to provide affordable, fresh food to customers living in food deserts and underserved neighborhoods through mobile grocery stores,” ceased operation in July 2017. Kansas City is spending upwards of $17 million to subsidize a Sun Fresh grocery store at the Linwood Shopping Center. Also at that center are a thriving Popeye’s Louisiana Kitchen, Linwood Chinese Express, and Pizza Hut.

If demand for healthy food does not increase, expect the Sun Fresh to face the same fate as its predecessor at that shopping center (it closed in 2007) while the fast-food restaurants nearby continue to flourish. The only thing that will change is a faster depletion of public funds.

Missouri’s Checkbook: 2000-2017

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

What does the state of Missouri spend your money on, and who is getting that money? You could always look at the state budget to give you a general idea of the state’s priorities, but unless you know where to look and have the time and money to complete the requests for the information, it would be pretty difficult to get your hands on Missouri’s “checkbook registers.”

Thanks to the hard work of many Show-Me staff, over the last few months the Institute has slowly accumulated a host of spending data—not only from the state, but from local governments as well—about how government officials are spending your money. Late last week, the state data set went live; expect to see a lot more in the days, weeks, and months ahead as we make more spending data available to the public.

If officials can spend your money, they can tell you what they’re buying and who is selling to them. We hope the public, researchers, stat geeks, and journalists find the information interesting and useful.

MoVIP Program Could Bring Advanced Coursework to Missouri Students

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

What’s so important about STEM education? For one thing, it’s a pathway to a high-paying job. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) jobs are growing twice as fast as non-STEM jobs. STEM workers are solving many of our most complex problems; as a result, they earn higher incomes and have a major impact on our economic growth.

So, what does the STEM education landscape look like in Missouri? The Education Commission of the States has a Vital Signs database that tracks whether states give students “equitable access to high-quality science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) educational experiences.” According to this database, STEM jobs will grow by nine percent in Missouri over the next ten years, including an expected growth of 14 percent in advanced manufacturing jobs. In Missouri, STEM jobs earn, on average, over $34 per hour, compared to $18 per hour for non-STEM jobs.

Unfortunately, in 2013-14, over 30 percent of high school students in Missouri did not have access to Calculus courses, about 20 percent had no access to Physics, and 10 percent couldn’t access Chemistry. In terms of college readiness for STEM, just 5 percent of Missouri high school students took an AP math exam in 2015 and 6 percent took an AP science exam. By comparison, 14 percent of high school students nationwide took an AP math or science exam that year. These data are from a federal data collection, and they match the results of research by Show-Me Institute staff. In the 2015-16 school year, of the school districts in Missouri that had high schools, 40 percent had no students enrolled in advanced Physics or Calculus and over 60 percent had none enrolled in AP courses.

Are these numbers we’re willing to live with? If not, what can be done? Given that just 17 percent of Missouri 8th-graders have math teachers who majored in math and 36 percent have science teachers who majored in science, it’s not likely that we will be able to staff our way out of this any time soon. The good news is that we have the Missouri Virtual Instruction Program (MoVIP)—an underused online course program that could be offered to all high school students in Missouri who don’t have full access to STEM or other courses. Districts can arrange for students to take a course through MoVIP and cover the tuition. Under this scenario, a district could be expected to pay about $450 for a course per semester, and they would be free to negotiate lower rates if, for example, they have several students in the same course. Picking up the tuition for students who successfully complete an online course is a much more cost-effective solution for districts, and it can have a big impact on students’ opportunities.

As we celebrate National School Choice Week, we need to recognize that too many of our high school students have no choice when it comes to STEM classes. The structure to give them access is already in place, and this could be an easy way to meet a vital need.

On Charter Schools, Let Families-not Politicians-Decide

Posted on by Emily Stahly

This year marks 20 years since Missouri enacted the law that allowed charter schools to open in St. Louis and Kansas City. Currently enrolling 22,000 students, charter schools have given much-needed options to families in these districts that have struggled historically. Unfortunately, families in the rest of Missouri are denied the same opportunity to send their children to schools that better fit their needs

As we kick off National School Choice Week, it is worth remembering that charter schools are designed to meet the needs and wants of families through innovation and flexibility. Whether parents and children want an academically stronger school, a safer school environment, or a school with a particular mission or focus, families should be the driving factor for when and where charter schools open.

Simply put, Missouri is letting down its students by functionally limiting charter schools to only two districts in the state. There is proposed legislation that would purportedly expand the ability to open new charter schools, but it places other conditions on where charter schools may open:

1.      A district must have at least 2,800 students—which is only 75 out of over 500 districts in Missouri.

2.      A district must have at least one school building that scored 68% or less on the Annual Performance Report for two of the last three years.

3.      The charter school can only serve the same grades as the school that meets the above criterion.

4.      The charter school must give preference to students living in the attendance zone of the struggling school.

5.      The charter school must apply to the local school board for sponsorship first.

This bill also creates rules for closing charter schools based on the results of their Annual Performance Review rather than the charter school’s performance contract with its sponsor. Overall, these provisions undermine the charter school model: more freedom in exchange for strong performance. Missouri’s charter school laws currently have our state ranked 30th out of the 44 states by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. We can do better for students by allowing for a strong charter school market that is responsive to the demands of families, not distant government officials.

If parents in a particular area are happy with their neighborhood school, that’s great! Charter school operators will most likely not try to open a school there. On the other hand, if a significant number of families want an alternative to their traditional public school, shouldn’t they have that option available?

This week, there will be over 30,000 events nationwide celebrating the educational opportunities that charter schools and other school choice programs have given students. By allowing charter schools to serve more communities in Missouri, we could see even more families joining the celebrations in the years to come.   

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging