Addressing Crime in Our Cities with Charles Fain Lehman

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Charles Fain Lehman, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, about his recent report titled Doing Less with Less: Crime and Punishment in Washington, DC. They explore the factors contributing to the rise in violent crime and public disorder, the impact of reduced law enforcement capacity, the broader implications for public safety, potential reforms to improve the criminal justice system, strategies for better resource allocation, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Bullying and Public School Funding

Posted on by James V. Shuls

I recently came upon a news story that claimed, “Education researchers say Missouri could do more to prevent bullying.” The story featured a bullying prevention expert from the University of Missouri. I am not familiar with the researcher’s work, but the news report provided several examples of how the state could do more. One of those recommendations was more funding to implement bullying prevention policies. While well-meaning, this is the wrong way to go about education funding.

Dedicated funding for specific purposes creates an incentive for inefficient spending. We can think of a multitude of programs and pet projects for which policymakers might want to dedicate funds, but doing so creates restricted pots of funds that often get spent on unneeded items. For example, if funds are dedicated to technology, a school district may continually spend those funds to purchase gadgets and upgraded devices that are not really needed. Similarly, if funds are dedicated to a bullying prevention program schools will have to spend those funds on those programs. For some schools, this could be dollars well spent. In other places, this might mean hiring unneeded staff or purchasing useless curriculum.

The problem with dedicated funding for these kinds of programs is that the needs for all schools are not the same. Earmarking funds for a program will lead to useful programs in some districts and pointless spending in others.

A better policy is to provide a clear, transparent funding system that properly incentivizes school leaders to make wise decisions with their dollars. School leaders need more discretion over their spending, not less. They need the ability to shift more dollars toward curriculum when resources are needed to support instruction, or to spend more on after-school tutoring when remediation is required. Instead of telling districts how they have to spend their money, we could just let bullied students choose a school where they feel safe, like Florida has.

We can all agree that we want to see less bullying in schools, but we also want to see our tax dollars used wisely and effectively. Carving out dedicated funds for specific purposes is not the way to accomplish those goals.

The Pitch’s Half-hearted Crime Research

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

In a recent interview with Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas, The Pitch magazine tried its best to support the contention that police funding is not related to crime. But even a casual examination of the evidence they offer gives the lie to that claim.

The piece featured a quote from the mayor bemoaning the passage of Amendment 4 in Missouri, which required the city to up its spending on the police from 20% to 25%. The author begins with a quote from the mayor:

“The current system doesn’t work. We need more accountability, not less . . . We need more innovations in policing, not less.” Lucas explained that he doesn’t believe an increase in funding for the KCPD will be useful in countering rising violent crime.

This is interesting because in his latest budget, Mayor Lucas was eager for the Kansas City Police Department to significantly increase salaries for existing officers as well as new hires. Why would he want that if he didn’t think it would be useful?

The Pitch, perhaps to back up the mayor’s reaction to Amendment 4, offers the following:

A body of evidence shows that increasing police funding has no major impact on reducing local crime rates. One of the tropes used during the campaign for Amendment 4 was the need to fund the KCPD while skewing the increase in homicide rates in Kansas City to present the Lucas administration and the Kansas City Council as far-left partisans who care not for the safety of their constituents.

The first link (“body”) is to a page of Human Rights Watch. It doesn’t expressly conclude that police funding doesn’t reduce crime. Instead, it provides a two-stage yet still heavily qualified claim:

Studies show that investing in health care, housing, universal basic income, child care, universal pre-K, and public safety programs outside the criminal legal system infrastructure would reduce poverty and inequality, and research suggests, is likely to improve community safety. [emphasis added]

All of that may be true. But plenty—in fact most—people living in poverty and suffering inequality do not commit crime. Policing is about getting criminals off the street and deterring crime. And we know that the most common victims of crime are exactly those same poor people.

The second two links (“evidence shows” and “Increasing police funding has no major impact”) are about a single study of the 20 largest cities in Canada. Those may be compelling. But I suspect the dynamics of crime and policing between the United States and our neighbor to the north are sufficiently different to be unhelpful for Kansas City.

The last link (“reducing local crime rates”) has nothing to do with the relationship between crime and police funding. The article merely makes the argument that many places accused of defunding the police have actually increased police funding.

Instead, consider the conclusion of a 2018 study conducted by Princeton University, titled, “More COPS, Less Crime.” The author examined the impact that federal COPS funding (Community Oriented Policing Services) had on crime and concluded, without qualification, “one officer-year was added for every $95,000 spent by the federal government and that the social benefit associated with the ensuing crime reduction [was] on the order of $350,000.”

Another paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2020 concludes, without qualification, “Each additional police officer abates approximately 0.1 homicides.”

Issues surrounding crime and law enforcement are not easily settled. They are made even more complicated by partisan politics. I suspect Mayor Lucas knows better than what he claimed, and The Pitch should be a little more thorough with its facts and research.

One Neighborhood Group Stands Up to Metro

Posted on by David Stokes

Residents and community leaders in the Jeff-Vander-Lou (JVL) neighborhood in St. Louis have been pushing back against Metro’s ridiculous proposed “Green Line” light-rail expansion. It is great to see this, and I hope more neighborhood associations along the route join them.

Let’s recap the proposal. The Green Line would be a five-mile route up and down Jefferson Avenue in St. Louis that then turns west for a few blocks on Natural Bridge near Fairground Park (which is where the JVL group bases its concerns). The entire plan will cost an estimated $1.1 billion, but the line is only predicted to have 5,000 boardings a day. That’s 5,000 boardings, not 5,000 people—most riders would use it both ways —and even that estimate is overly optimistic.

The demand for public transit along this route up and down Jefferson doesn’t currently justify its own bus route, but supposedly large numbers of people will magically ride MetroLink when the Green Line appears.

Why is Metro trying to build this route? Well, to quote Metro’s CEO, Taulby Roach:

A billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but . . . 60 percent of that investment comes from the federal government, so why wouldn’t we want to get that money?

So, basically, let’s get the federal funds and spend them. Who cares that there is no demand for this route or that Metro’s own underwhelming projections admit that few people will actually use it? Let’s get some of other people’s money to spend! No wonder we are $35 trillion in debt.

I commend JVL’s neighborhood group for publicly asking tough questions about this project, which it calls the “Metro-Leg To Nowhere.” The pressure to support this boondoggle is strong. It’s great to see people stand up to it.

Are New Buildings the Answer?

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

In 2000, the Kansas City 33 School District (KCPS) had over 37,000 students attending 87 schools. Last year, the district had just over 13,000 students attending 14 schools. Part of the reason for this is that over half of the families living in the district have chosen charter schools over KCPS schools.

So it seems surprising that KCPS is asking taxpayers to approve spending $424 million to buy bonds to improve buildings in the district. These bonds require an increase in the property tax rate that would cost the owner of a $200,000 home an additional $231 in property taxes each year. That seems like a lot.

The last time KCPS tried to convince taxpayers to do this, the bond referendum failed because, according to the superintendent, “families weren’t inspired” by the plan. This time, the goal is to send any student who has to move or whose school is closed to a new or newer school. The claim is that this will make the students feel more important and more worthy.

KCPS is certainly struggling. Last year, despite spending over $22,000 per student, only 22 percent scored on grade level in reading and 21 percent did so in math. In other words, four out of five students are below grade level. It’s not surprising that families have turned to charter schools.

The question is—will new buildings turn that around? The district plans to spend more than $50,000 per child on these capital improvements. Could that money be better spent in the existing classrooms?

Is There a Comeback Story in Missouri Schools?

Posted on by Avery Frank

The 2024 Summer Olympics have come to a close, and there were so many amazing storylines such as Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone incredibly breaking her own world record, or Lee Kiefer blocking behind the back to secure the fencing gold. While those are just a few examples, one in particular caught my attention—Quincy Hall’s epic comeback in the 400m. I remember the announcers saying, “Look at Hall, he’s fading badly at this point,” then moments later, “Quincy Hall is coming back! Quincy Hall is digging deep! Quincy Hall is running past all of them!”

In one moment, they counted him out, and in the next, they were amazed at his determination. I’m hoping for an epic comeback story like this in Missouri public schools. Our scores faded badly following the COVID-19 pandemic. And sadly, with the recent release of the preliminary 2023–2024 Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) results, it is fair to say we are not running past everyone yet.

One state board of education member stated she was “a little deflated that we didn’t see more growth and progress.” I agree that the results were a little disappointing, so let’s delve into the specific statistics.

It is worth noting these are preliminary results for the 2023–2024 school year, so they could be subject to minor changes.

Overall, English/language arts (ELA) scores remained stagnant and math scores continued to gradually improve.

Figure 1: Missouri Assessment Program: ELA

Figure 2: Missouri Assessment Program: Math

After the pandemic, math scores fell more than ELA scores, but math scores have bounced back, and even surpassed pre-pandemic levels in some areas. Growth in math scores has been driven primarily by success in middle school mathematics, as 6th and 7th grade scores have surpassed pre-pandemic levels and 8th grade scores now match 2019 levels (not shown in Figure 2).

For elementary math, scores still remain below 2019 levels. Third grade scores have declined the most. 5th grade scores did not improve from 2023 and remain below pre-pandemic levels. There could be a need for greater focus in elementary instruction.

ELA scores continue to remain flat and far below pre-pandemic levels. They have actually dipped even further after the initial COVID drop. No grade-level cohort has exceeded its pre-pandemic levels, and only two cohorts (4th and 7th graders) improved from last year. Sixth graders have particularly struggled in ELA post-pandemic, as their pre-pandemic scores have declined more than any other grade level.

Missouri needs drastic action to help our students improve their ELA skills. A solid reading foundation is paramount for educational success, and we need to do everything in our power to catch our students up. Further commitment to the Missouri’s LETRS program (an evidence-based reading initiative) could yield results. Focus on evidence-based reading instruction has proven successful in other states such as South Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Those three states have also made phonics instruction mandatory. Reams and reams of research support evidence-based reading instruction.

Let’s dig deep and further commit to helping our students grow. I want to see a legendary comeback story.

Missouri Needs More Market Forces in Education

Posted on by Avery Frank

In a recent Show-Me Institute paper, Why Markets Matter in Education, Dr. Michael McShane effectively summarizes the importance of free market forces in the historically monopolized education sector. He states,

Markets offer three mechanisms that facilitate school choice. First, they allow for a level of diversity in school offerings that traditional, centrally managed school systems are not able to. Second, they encourage competition between providers, improving the quality of school options for students and families. Third, markets are incredible information gathering institutions, and a more market-driven system can help bring attention to better educational practices and ways to meet family needs that can then be copied by other schools.

When I think about policies that increase the diversity of options, encourage competition, and spur innovation, open enrollment and education savings account (ESA) programs come to mind.

Open enrollment allows students to attend any public school district. In Missouri, a voluntary open enrollment policy has been discussed but never implemented. Open enrollment legislation has passed through the House for four consecutive years but has not had enough momentum to push through the Senate. Open enrollment empowers parents to choose the district and school that best suits their children and strengthens school districts by forcing them to compete for students. Through the addition of open enrollment, competition and increased feedback could spur needed innovation and growth, while at the same time matching families with districts that best suit their needs.

While Senate Bill (SB) 727 expanded Missouri’s ESA program (MOScholars), there are issues with financing. MOScholars is still not publicly funded, as robust ESA programs in other states are. Due to this, many families are left out of the program. A stronger ESA program would give more parents the ability to vote with their feet to support schools with beneficial education practices.

Education cannot be forgotten—our state is experiencing chronic absenteeism and lower academic scores. On the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), Missouri students have failed to bounce back from the pandemic drop. In English/language arts (ELA), no grade-level cohort has matched or surpassed its pre-pandemic levels. Almost all ELA scores today are actually lower than they were in the first post-COVID year (2020–2021), with 5th graders being the only exception. Sixth graders have fared the worst of all grade levels—in 2018-2019, 46 percent scored proficient or advanced in ELA. In 2021–2022, that number dropped to 43 percent, and by 2023–2024, it sunk to 38 percent.

Hopefully, SB 727 will not be the end of the road for needed change. Markets do matter in education, and school choice policies can greatly benefit our state.

St. Louis Public Schools Exemplifies the Need for Educational Transparency

Posted on by Avery Frank

St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) has been in the news a lot recently, and not for the best reasons. The superintendent is out, the largest school bus vendor cancelled its contract, and chronic absenteeism plagues the district. The most surprising revelation, arguably, is the report that SLPS has moved from a 17-million-dollar surplus to 35-million-dollar deficit all in one year.  The state will conduct an audit of SLPS, and hopefully it will shine a needed light on exactly what happened.

Maybe I should have seen this coming, as SLPS was the second-to-last district to have its Annual Secretary of the Board Report available on the Department of Secondary and Elementary Education (DESE) website—and it was months behind schedule.

Transparency is important in public institutions. Parents deserve to know what their money is being spent on in public education. The Show-Me Institute created MOSchoolRankings for this very purpose, providing needed transparency regarding the performance and spending in our public school system. DESE ought to provide this information, but its spending and performance data website is woefully inadequate.

Missouri’s education system has struggled with transparency. In fact, in 2023, the Heritage Foundation ranked Missouri 46th in educational transparency—a very poor ranking, but a slight improvement on Missouri’s 51st rank in 2022.

Increased transparency can come in many forms, one of which is a Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights. Additionally, the sunshine law needs to be strengthened, as school districts have demanded hundreds of thousands of dollars from Institute researchers to access curricular documents. The sunshine law needs to have “teeth,” perhaps in the form of significant financial consequences for violations. That way, this law will not just be seen as a mere set of recommendations that can be violated without consequences.

SLPS is facing an uphill battle this year. We will see what we can learn from the state audit. In the future, increased transparency may be able to head off some of these problems before they become a crisis.

The L.A. Olympics Will Likely Be an Economic Failure

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

The New York Times publishes that as Los Angeles is on the brink of hosting the 2028 Olympic Games, the city’s leaders are bullish on turning a profit, much like the storied 1984 games. But as we’ve seen time and time again, these grandiose promises of economic windfalls often fizzle out, leaving taxpayers picking up the tab.

These big convention hotels, entertainment districts, and sporting events don’t fail to live up to expectations in just Kansas City and St. Louis. They fail expectations all over the world.

L.A. is plowing ahead with infrastructure upgrades—expanding the rail system, modernizing LAX, and revamping the downtown convention center. These projects are fueled by a mix of federal funds, city dollars, and airport fees, with the idea that the influx of tourists will help offset the costs.

Mayor Karen Bass is pitching the Olympics as an opportunity not just to showcase L.A.’s iconic landmarks like Hollywood and Venice Beach, but also as a chance to shine a light on its diverse communities—Little Bangladesh, Little Armenia, and beyond. It’s a noble goal, but L.A. could take a massive financial hit if things go sideways.

And these big events are always going sideways.

The 1984 Olympics held up as their north star were a financial anomaly, largely because the city smartly used existing venues. Fast forward to today and the stakes are higher, with a nearly $7 billion budget hanging in the balance. LA28, the private group organizing the games, insists it will foot the bill through sponsorships, ticket sales, and global TV rights. But if costs spiral out of control, L.A. taxpayers will be left to pick up the tab. The city and state have agreed to cover any budget overruns, which is a colossal gamble.

We’ve seen it before—the pandemic-delayed Tokyo Games ballooned to $14 billion in costs, and Rio’s 2016 Olympics cost a staggering $24 billion, with both events blowing past their budgets. L.A. is trying to avoid that by sticking with existing venues like the Coliseum and Rose Bowl. Even with these cost-saving measures, there’s no guarantee that the numbers will add up.

The reality is the Olympics often leave host cities grappling with long-term debt, gentrification, and displacement. This risk applies to the recently closed Paris Olympics. Groups like NOlympics LA are already sounding the alarm, arguing that the games could exacerbate L.A.’s housing crisis and deepen economic disparities.

The 2028 Olympics could be a golden opportunity for L.A., but recent history tells us it is more likely to be another costly boondoggle. With so much on the line, Angelenos should keep a close eye on how this plays out.

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