Missouri Ranked as Second Most Dangerous State to Drive in

Posted on by Avery Frank

When I first moved to the City of St. Louis, I became instantly aware of the danger of driving in the city. Frankly, I have seen some maneuvers on the road that you would not even believe—some of them are just close calls, but too many turn into fatal crashes. Recently, Forbes Advisor released a ranking of the 50 riskiest states to drive in. Missouri received the silver medal, coming in as the second- riskiest state to drive in. My anecdotes are supported in the data. There have been improvements, but the city needs stronger enforcement in the courts and on the streets.

Forbes’s data were compiled from an array of federal organizations, including the FBI. The rankings are based on fatal accident rates, DUI arrests, road rage incidents, car thefts, risk of wildlife collision, condition of roads, and more.

Breaking the rankings down further, Missouri has the:

  • 5th highest rate of car thefts
  • 6th highest percentage of drivers who experienced a road rage incident
  • 10th highest number of drunk drivers involved fatal car crashes
  • 10th highest wildlife collision risk
  • 12th highest number of people killed in fatal car accidents

The City of St. Louis likely contributes to the overall high riskiness measured in Forbes’s metric. Last year, I wrote a post during the height of mass Hyundai and Kia thefts, when thefts of those two brands soared from 273 to 3,958 in one year. During a two-week period in that August, there were 462 cars stolen or attempted to be stolen in the City of St. Louis, yet shockingly, only 1 person was charged in city courts for a crime related to auto theft over that same time period.

I’ve lived in the city for two years now, and I still haven’t seen someone in the city get pulled over for driving into oncoming traffic or running red lights. The data confirm this observation, as vehicle stops, citations, and arrests in the city have all greatly decreased.

Since 1995, the City of St. Louis has lost 22% of its residents and 40% of its police force. Police staffing shortages are real in the city. In 2024, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department is budgeted to have 1,220 officers on staff, but currently only has 894.

For a city that is shrinking, the reputation and reality of having unsafe roads is a huge problem. It is imperative for St. Louis and Missouri at-large that we make a U-turn and make our roads safer.

STL Q Down the Loo

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

One of my family’s favorite Kansas City events is the Ethnic Enrichment Festival. Representatives of so many different cultures and ethnicities set up tables and tents and sell the food and drink of their countries to the general public. Its value is not just the cultural presentations on hand, but the mixing of attendees in Swope Park. This coming weekend I’ll be volunteering at the Kansas City Irish Fest, another event hosted in the city, albeit focusing more on one particular ethnicity. Slainte!

But regardless of what is being celebrated, events like these point to a vibrant city.

Sadly, this may not be the case on the other side of the state in St. Louis.

On July 25, St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones was on hand to help hype the “Q in the Lou” barbecue festival, scheduled to be held on the grounds of the Gateway Arch in early September. Jason Hall, CEO of Greater St. Louis, a non-profit dedicated to revitalizing the city, was triumphal in saying that bringing this “signature national festival back to downtown St Louis is showing how this community is answering that call taking action and making us stronger.”

Apparently not.

Q in the Lou has been canceled. According the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Sean Hadley, one of the organizers of the event, confirmed the cancellation Monday afternoon, citing trouble garnering corporate sponsorship and VIP ticket sales — and public safety concerns disputed by the mayor’s office.

“We’re seeing a lack of support,” Hadley said. “It’s not there.”

This truly is a shame. St. Louis has a real problem with public safety and the public perception. Subsidized events and buildings won’t change that. It can only be solved by the slow and difficult work of public policy, including increasing public safety, keeping the city clean and orderly, maintaining infrastructure, and doing all of this in a cost-efficient manner.

There is no shortcut, no matter how good the ribs are.

New Schools, Old Problems: The KCPS Bond Proposal with Patrick Tuohey

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Patrick Tuohey, senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute, about the Kansas City 33 School District’s recent proposal to issue $424 million in bonds for building improvements. Despite a significant decline in enrollment and a previous failed bond referendum, KCPS is asking taxpayers to fund this initiative through increased property taxes. They discuss whether new buildings can truly address the district’s deeper issues, such as poor academic performance and declining enrollment, if the funds could be better spent elsewhere, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

More Districts to Try New Standardized Testing System

Posted on by Avery Frank

This school year, six St. Louis-area school districts will begin using a new adaptive testing system to assess student performance in key subjects. Unlike the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), which is administered at the end of the year, this new testing system will be administered several times throughout the year. In the St. Louis metropolitan area, Kirkwood, Jennings, Ferguson-Florissant, Hazelwood, Ladue, and Maplewood-Richmond Heights are now joining Affton, Lindbergh, Mehlville, Parkway, Pattonville, Ritenour, and Confluence Academies who, as part of the “Demonstration Project,” implemented this system last year.

Last year, 20 districts statewide implemented this new system as part of the Demonstration Project. Public data on this initiative will be released soon on September 30. These districts are primarily seeking exemptions because administrators in those districts do not feel the MAP is an adequate tool to improve student performance. The test is administered to students at the end of the year, which means districts do not receive test results back until the fall of the following year.

The system adopted by these district tests students  three times per year in English/language arts and math. Missouri could also consider pairing this model with a teacher rating system (like Tennessee’s) to gauge how effective a teacher’s class and curriculum are.

The fact that many districts believe that they could develop better testing than DESE speaks volumes. The MAP needs to be timelier, and it needs to be more informative for students, parents, and teachers. My colleague, James Shuls, lamented the lack of detail in a 2018 blog post.

Even with the shortcomings of the MAP test, Missouri ought to have a uniform statewide test that allows researchers, district officials, and policymakers to learn about different education strategies and trends. If a district implements a new strategy for teaching algebra, and it sees great improvement on the MAP, another district could mimic its practices.

There will be more clarity when statistics for the Demonstration Project are released in a month. If the results are encouraging, fully transitioning to this new testing system statewide might be worth considering.

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?

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