St. Louis has a reputation for being a violent city. Crime issues have helped push people out in droves and deterred newcomers from settling in the area. St. Louis City’s population has decreased by over 30% since the 1980s, and the number of vacant downtown buildings has increased substantially. The Wall Street Journal went as far as to call downtown a “real estate nightmare.”

Although St. Louis continues to rank among the most dangerous cities in the country, efforts have been made to solve the ongoing crime problem, beginning with the replacement of former St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner in 2023. Gardner exacerbated the crime issue in several ways, including having an exclusion list of police officers who were not allowed to bring cases to her office and creating a massive backlog of more than 6,700 cases that awaited charging decisions. The current St. Louis Circuit Attorney, Gabe Gore, has since cleared all cases in the backlog.

More recent efforts include House Bill (HB) 495, signed by Governor Mike Kehoe into law in March. This legislation transfers control of the St. Louis Police Department to a state-appointed board. The governor has already made five interim appointments to the six-person board (the mayor is the sixth member of the board). In addition, a $45 million 911 dispatch center broke ground last year in St. Louis with the goal of improving response times. In St. Louis, only half of the 911 calls in 2022 were answered within the national standard of 10 seconds.

It is unclear whether these efforts will have positive impacts on public safety in St. Louis, but what is clear is that violent crime in the city is down. It was down 7.8% in 2024 compared to 2023. The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD) reported homicides were down 6.3 % in 2024. It is worth noting that crime is down across the country, so this may be part of a larger trend.

The fact that St. Louis has lower violent crime and homicide rates is a positive sign, but time will tell if the city can sustain this success and lose the moniker of being one of the nation’s most dangerous cities.

The post St. Louis’s Improving Crime Data appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The screening came just as Kansas City announced another city-sponsored initiative to deal with crime, Kansas City United for Public Safety (KCUPS). It is not yet clear how this group will differ from the previous similar collectives such as KC Nova, the Violence Free Kansas City Committee, KC Common Ground, and Jackson County’s COMBAT. Somehow this group expects to succeed where others have failed. KCUPS had meetings, published a plan, and held a press conference, so it is as real as any anti-crime effort in Kansas City.

The leader of KC Common Ground, Klassie Alcine, was at the screening and gave an interview to Jonathan Ketz of FOX4 KC. Her answer when asked how much money would be needed to address crime in Kansas City? “Billions.”

I have been writing about crime, policing, and criminal justice reform at Show-Me Institute for years. I do not present myself as an expert and I am quick to admit these issues are complex. Kansas City has gotten where it is because of years of bad decision-making. The road ahead will be difficult, slow, and expensive.

But anyone who is remotely aware of Kansas City’s history knows that we spent billions on public education and have little to show for it. We spend millions each year on anti-crime programs through the county COMBAT program without even trying to measure their impact. Kansas City shoppers are also taxed to fund an economic development fund for the city’s poverty-scarred east side. That includes a publicly subsidized grocery store recently suffering high crime.

The people of Kansas City are generous, perhaps to a fault. One more effort to address crime that looks and sounds like other failed efforts needs to do better than leading with a price tag. Tell us what you want to do and give us reasonable goals and the ways you are going to measure success. Anything less seems like asking taxpayers to throw good money after bad.

The post Shocker! Local Leader Demands More Money to Address Issue appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That said, there is a great deal of balancing that has to take place when considering legislation like this. After all, employers and landlords both have their own interests in having a full picture of who they’re hiring or housing. Does a bank want to hire someone convicted of fraud? Probably not. Good faith arguments about the manner and extent of expungement laws are an important part of the process, and those debates are happening in Missouri over Clean Slate. For me, a Missouri version of Clean Slate needs to ensure two things happen.

First, in contrast to Clean Slate’s “automatic expungement” proposal, why not have former offenders initiate the expungement process, after which expungement is automatic?

It’s a nuanced but important point. Supporters of model Clean Slate legislative language generally prefer the idea of “automatic expungement”—that after a certain period of time, an offense drops off criminal records without any action taken by the ex-offender. In Missouri, the existing expungement process is a petition-based system, which can be fraught, winding, and ultimately unwieldy for many former offenders to navigate. Many don’t bother, leaving expungeable offenses on their records.

But combining the offender-initiated expungement process with automated expungement offers the best of both worlds. It puts the responsibility on an offender to start the process of beginning a new chapter in their lives and strikes out the judicial bureaucracy that stops many ex-offenders from initiating expungement to begin with.

Second, the state should not impose a sort of prior restraint on background check companies.

The standard Clean Slate proposal contemplates restrictions on what background check companies can tell employers and landlords, even if what they tell them is true. There’s no denying the truth that ex-offenders broke the law, and background check companies have the right to share truthful information about an individual’s criminal record. The question is, how do you best balance the First Amendment rights of companies and the policy objectives of Clean Slate?

Well, a better way forward is to set out legal incentives for background check companies in the way they characterize past expunged offenses. The state should allow background check companies (1) to omit expunged offenses and protect them from liability for that omission, and (2) to report the expunged offense but only if its expungement is clearly included. Such an approach would not only allow background check companies a path to omit offenses without running afoul of the First Amendment, but it would also give ex-offenders a right to sue for defamation if their criminal history is mischaracterized by these companies.

Central to the issue of background checks is how those performing background checks even gain access to this criminal justice information, which at its core is a kind of transparency issue. Missouri has a robust court activity database where reams of case information are readily available to the public, and overall, that’s a good thing.

But while transparency of government is extraordinarily important, transparency of the records of individuals is a thornier policy subject. Individual income tax filings are highly protected documents not subject to public perusal; should non-violent and comparatively low-level criminal offenses be treated similarly? Perhaps. In any case, if the expungement of criminal records is ever to be properly effectuated, legislators must also assess how available these records should be in general.

As with all policy proposals, legislators should weigh out all the costs and benefits of Clean Slate, both as originally proposed and as it might be modified for Missouri. For a complex issue like criminal justice reform, the details matter, and getting those details right can take time. Clean Slate may or may not get done this year, but with a few tweaks, I think it can get done here in Missouri sooner, not later.

The post A (Tweaked) Clean Slate Bill Offers an Important Opportunity for Criminal Justice Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But December 1st is also an important day for the legislature. That’s because it’s the first day legislation can be submitted for consideration before the chambers reconvene in January. Known as “pre-filing,” the process generally signals what the top priorities are going to be for legislators in the next legislative cycle—with the fastest filers getting the lowest-numbered bills and the sometimes dubious bragging rights of being the first to bring policy ideas to the legislative table.

What will be in the queue? In no particular order, here are some of the ideas that have been getting a lot of talk this fall and will probably be hot topics when the legislature reopens in 2023:

• Open enrollment is the idea that students in the state should, in some form or fashion, be able to enroll in a public school outside their home district. It appears that this will be a major priority in the House. My colleague Susan Pendergrass has talked about the issue at length, and it seems like she will probably do so again in the upcoming session.
• The Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights, or MPBR, looks likely to make a comeback. The bill would guarantee parents a stronger role in their kids’ education and require curricular transparency from schools and districts that currently doesn’t exist.
• School board reform has been a popular topic of legislative debate during the break, including potential changes to when elections are held and transparency around who board members are and how they can be contacted by the public.
• Lastly in education, there may be a push to clarify who can participate in girls’ sports.
• The corporate income tax made a cameo in this fall’s special session, with a cut to the tax being stripped at the last minute from the individual income tax legislation that eventually passed. With a regular legislative session afoot, a push to cut or even phase out the corporate income tax appears likely. As with the individual income tax, I am a strong supporter of the reduction and elimination of the corporate income tax and am looking forward to hearing that debate in 2023.
• Property tax reform and changes to the Hancock Amendment will likely receive an outsized amount of debate, especially in the House. Both deal with the size of government and the tax burden government can impose.
• There also appears to be interest in the Clean Slate Initiative both inside the legislature and outside it. National organizations appear primed to get involved with a push to expunge certain criminal records, with conditions, to better integrate former inmates back into society. The exact language of the proposal remains in flux, but when it’s finalized, I’ll definitely weigh in on it.

‘Tis the season for policy. Let’s hope it’s a good one.

The post Some Thoughts on “Pre-Filing Eve” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Back in 2019, Institute researchers highlighted Fresh Start Act legislation that other states had passed before Missouri passed its own version the following year. The Fresh Start Act modifies occupational licensing regulations for workers with a criminal record to make it easier for the formerly incarcerated to find gainful employment.

What does that matter? Well, strict occupational licensing rules for those who have criminal records can make it harder for those with a checkered past to find work. Not only can that impede successful re-entry efforts, but it limits the supply of workers. The Fresh Start Act does not allow criminal records to disqualify an individual from receiving an occupational license unless the criminal conviction directly relates to the occupation (an individual with a conviction relating to children would not be able to obtain a teaching license, for example). But for the vast majority of former inmates, relaxing licensing rules is a good thing.

Licensing burdens are, of course, a problem for many seeking work, but those with criminal records are particularly at risk for being written out of entire sectors of the economy. State legislatures have started addressing this problem; since 2015, 38 states, including Missouri, have reformed their occupational licensing laws to make it easier for ex-offenders to find work in industries in which the state requires an occupational license to operate.

The Fresh Start Act may seem like a small thing, but for the formerly incarcerated, it could mean the world. More should be done on licensing in general—including the regular sunsetting of all licensing regimes —but this legislation was a good step.

The post A Criminal Justice Reform in Occupational Licensing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Some 38 million people, nearly one in eight, live in poverty in today’s America as liberals and conservatives spar predictably over solutions – government assistance versus pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Researcher and writer Michael Tanner wants to draw from both sides.

Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and a National Review online columnist, explores the issue in a discussion of his book The Inclusive Economy. His remedy is not more government intervention in spending or redistribution but rather a series of actions that address the racism, gender discrimination, and economic dislocation feeding poverty. They range from criminal justice reform to greater educational flexibility and the elimination of savings barriers for the poor.

We’re hosting this event in both St. Louis and Kansas City.

To RSVP for St. Louis, click here

To RSVP for Kansas City, click here

The post Free Lecture: Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner on How to Bring Wealth to America’s Poor appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While persons are legally responsible for the costs of their board bills under section 221.070, if such responsibilities fall delinquent, the debts cannot be taxed as court costs and the failure to pay that debt cannot result in another incarceration.

We previously wrote about the plight of “pay to stay” debtors prisons. In short, courts were locking people up for not adequately paying the fees associated with their previous incarceration, triggering an awful cycle. The Show-Me Institute joined in filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of George Richey. We are grateful to Mr. Richey, among others, who chose to challenge this practice. We look forward to more victories in our search for sensible criminal justice reforms.

The post Missouri to End Debtors Prisons appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That pushback didn’t materialize, though, because not only would jobs not be lost, but the workers at Crossroads would be employed at a nearby facility. Specifically, when I heard it mentioned during debate on the Senate floor that Crossroads was across the street from the facility it would be consolidated with—the Western Missouri Correctional Center (WMCC)—at first I thought that was an exaggeration. “Across the street?” Really?

But lo and behold, Missouri has had two prisons operating across the street from each other for about 20 years now:

Why it took so long to consolidate the prisons, I’m not sure. Because Crossroads is a maximum-security prison, security will have to be fortified in at least part of WMCC, to the tune of about $3 million. Perhaps that was the reason. But that $3 million is a small price to pay for even larger savings, and from a good governance perspective, it sure looks like bringing these facilities together is the right call. Missourinet elaborated on the reasoning for consolidation:

The department has been battling to fill hundreds of correctional officer job vacancies. [State Department of Corrections Director Anne] Precythe says the reorganization plan will create a fully-functioning, safe environment, versus trying to “limp along” with two half-staffed, half-full institutions.

The estimated $20 million savings from closing CRCC is slated to give department employees, minus executive staff, a one percent pay raise for two years of continued service. If Parson’s proposed three percent state worker pay increase happens, then corrections workers would get another raise. Precythe has touted the pay boost as the largest in the department’s history.

This consolidation may have been in the works for a while, but whatever its genesis, it’s an elegant solution to saving taxpayer money and reorienting, if ever so slightly, the state’s criminal justice strategy. If the state can build fewer prisons and push potential inmates back into being contributing members of society, Missourians on the whole will be that much better off.

The post Prison Consolidation a Smart Step Toward Better Government appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Whether it is for a technical violation of the terms of their parole or because they committed a new offense, having so many people return to prison is expensive. The average cost to incarcerate just one person for one year is $21,000. Multiply that by thousands of people serving years-long sentences and the cost of recidivism for Missouri taxpayers is in the millions.

While there are several important factors that may contribute to recidivism rates, research has found that finding employment upon release strongly affects whether someone will end up back in prison. This study from the Justice Center at the Council of State Governments explains why employment for ex-offenders is important:

Employment can make a strong contribution to recidivism-reduction efforts because it refocuses individuals’ time and efforts on prosocial activities, making them less likely to engage in riskier behaviors and to associate with people who do…Employment also has important societal benefits, including reduced strain on social service resources, contributions to the tax base, and safer, more stable communities.

Last year, Show-Me Institute’s Patrick Tuohey testified on a bill that would have removed the restriction on anyone convicted of a felony from obtaining a license to sell lottery tickets—a law which essentially prohibited them from working at convenience stores or gas stations. While this bill wasn’t adopted, other states have taken an approach that Missouri should consider.

Instead of considering different licensed occupations piecemeal, Fresh Start Legislation adopted in other states requires a comprehensive review of licensing boards’ restrictions on ex-offenders. Such a review can help ex-offenders by removing unnecessary barriers to employment. Part two of this blog post will dig more into what a Fresh Start law would look like and how it could help Missouri reduce its recidivism rates.

The post Giving Ex-Offenders a Fresh Start When Looking For a Job: Part One appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In effect, the counties are operating debtor’s prisons.

George Richey is one person who has had a run in with these board bills. According to the Missourian,

Of the $3,226 assessed to Richey in 2015, $3,150 is for board at $35 a day.

Almost 2 1/2 years later, Richey is still paying for that bill, with a balance of around $1,600 left as of May. That is, until he was hit with a new board bill in 2016 of an additional $2,275—the result of being jailed because he couldn’t fully pay the first bill.

Missouri is not alone in this practice. According to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice, “as of 2015, at least 43 states authorize room and board fees and at least 35 states authorize medical fees to be charged to inmates in either state or county correctional facilities.”

Through his public defender, Richey filed suit against the state of Missouri seeking to end the practice, and Missouri’s Attorney General lent support to Richey’s effort, noting in an amicus brief filed with the Missouri Supreme Court, “De facto debtors’ prisons have no place in Missouri, and I am proud to stand up against a system that seeks to treat its poorer citizens as ATMs.”

Last week, the Show-Me Institute joined the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, the Fines & Fees Justice Center, the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, and Fair and Just Prosecution in submitting an amicus curiae brief to the Missouri Supreme Court. The brief notes that the current system burdens both the individuals being fined as well as the courts, and that there are other, more effective ways to collect debt. The filing concludes:

Jail debt, when imposed on indigent individuals like Mr. Richey, is irrational, unjust, counterproductive, and likely unconstitutional.  This Court should reverse the trial court’s denial of Mr. Richey’s motion to retax costs.

There are plenty of opportunities for criminal justice reform in Missouri, and we have written about many of them in the past. Often such reforms focus on how to maintain public safety while reducing costs to taxpayers. This effort, however, focuses on protecting the liberty of individuals from pernicious government. We hope the courts will agree.

The post Show-Me Institute Issues Brief Regarding “Pay to Stay” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I testified regarding how HB 1739 and its companion bill Senate Bill could benefit Missouri. The reform effort promises the possibility not only of saving taxpayer money, but of better protecting the individual liberty of Missourians in the criminal justice system. I hope the the Senate acts swiftly to make these reforms a reality.

The post The Time Is Right for Mandatory Minimum Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri leads the Midwest in incarceration rates, and we’re eighth highest in the nation. We just recently lost to Kentucky our position of having the highest incarceration rate for women. If we do nothing to slow the flood of new inmates, Missouri will need to spend about $485 million in the next five years to build and operate two new prisons. For comparison’s sake, the entire budget of the state Department of Corrections is $725 million in 2018. (It was $580 million in 2006.)

According to the Missouri Department of Corrections’ 2016 Profile of Institutional and Supervised Offender Population, 41 percent of inmates are incarcerated for nonviolent and/or drug-related crimes. These two offender groups, incidentally, are the fastest-growing populations since 2011. Missourians could save hundreds of millions of dollars if courts had the flexibility to sentence these offenders to treatment programs or probationary periods prior to locking them up—while still retaining the ability to protect us from violent or habitual offenders.

Furthermore, research indicates that large sentences are not as effective a deterrent as swift capture and conviction. And large sentences are expensive, and not just in terms of the public dollars used to house and feed inmates. They also impose a significant cost on families and make it harder for ex-offenders to re-enter the workforce and become productive members of society.

The good news is that there is a better way.

Other states, such as Texas, have found ways to increase public safety and reduce recidivism while reducing public spending on prisons. Reducing mandatory minimum sentencing in certain circumstances is a part of that public policy strategy. Let’s return to judges the discretion they need to separate violent offenders from those who pose less of a threat. To do nothing will put greater pressure on public coffers while offering no respite from crime.

The post Reform Missouri’s Mandatory Minimums appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One major component of these reforms would be to increase the number of community treatment centers for substance abuse and mental health. Currently, 35 percent of admissions are for in-prison treatment because no alternative exists in the offenders’ community. Unfortunately, the task force found that Missouri’s in-prison treatment programs are ineffective, thus wasting taxpayers’ dollars. Establishing more community-based treatment programs could produce much better outcomes and be a better use of the state’s resources.

The proposed legislation would also assist law enforcement in combatting violent crime, increase access to victim compensation, and adopt better practices throughout the Department of Corrections to reduce recidivism. Given that Missouri’s prisons are already over capacity, pursuing these reforms would be a step in the right direction.

The post An Opportunity for Responsible Criminal Justice Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The case is fairly straightforward, and our testimony is brief. Because Missouri’s incarceration rate is so high—8th in the nation—we are on course to need two more state prisons at a cost to build and operate of $485 million over the next 5 years. Giving judges the flexibility to avoid mandatory sentences where there are extenuating circumstances will not only save taxpayers money, but also reduce the burden on individuals trying to piece together their lives.

The post Reducing Mandatory Minimums appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Senate Bill 748 and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post House Bill 1739 and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Giving judges this discretion should reduce concerns that offenders will be let off the hook too easily. Repeat offenders, or those whose crimes are especially serious, could still be dealt with appropriately. Meanwhile, the juvenile justice system could handle the others, which could benefit both the teens and the state.

One concern about this policy is the cost. Based on the fiscal note for similar legislation introduced during the last legislative session, placing more teens in the juvenile system would cost an additional $6.715 million per year. Dr. David Mitchell, an economics professor from Missouri State University, used an alternative cost calculation in a paper he presented at a recent Raise the Age panel discussion.

He argues that even though the per-person/per-year cost is higher in the juvenile system than in the adult prisons, 17-year-olds sent to adult prison spend more time behind bars, on average, than they would if they were in juvenile detention centers. Thus, the cost savings would be higher for the Department of Corrections than originally estimated and the net burden on the state would be closer to $2.432 million per year. He also points out that this amount is only .008% of the state’s budget.

So the cost of this policy to the state would be less than previously assumed. The benefits, however, could be large according to Dr. Mitchell’s estimates. Based on several factors, there could be long-term economic gains from placing most 17-year-olds in the juvenile system.

First, teens convicted of crimes have better earning potential if they go through the juvenile system. Studies have found that teens who have been in adult prison have a 20 percent lower chance of being employed after they are released and work 25 to 30 percent fewer hours if they do manage to find a job. On the other hand, teens who were convicted of a crime but did not go to an adult prison had almost as good a chance at finding a job as teens who did not commit a crime at all.

Second, there is a large disparity in recidivism rates between the juvenile system and the adult system. In Missouri, the recidivism rate for youthful offenders coming out of the adult prison system is about 67 percent, whereas the rate for those coming out of the juvenile system is 15 percent.

With these two factors in mind, placing most 17-year-olds into the juvenile system could be fiscally beneficial to the state. They would be more likely to have a job and be paying taxes (money gained for the state) after serving their sentences, and less likely to end up back in jail (less money being spent by the state).

It’s impossible to know exactly how much raising the age could save the state, but Dr. Mitchell’s analysis indicates that it would be a worthwhile investment. With such a small upfront cost and  potentially large long term gains for the state—not to mention positive impact on these teens’ lives—shouldn’t Missouri join the vast majority of states with this sensible reform?

The post What Is the Cost of ‘Raising the Age’? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Learn more About Raising The Age:

Criminal Justice Reform: Raising The Age 

Raise The Age – And Save! 

The post Show-Me Now! Justice and the Future: Is It Time to Raise the Age? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Health insurance premium hikes
• Free speech on college campuses
• Nationwide school choice survey results
• Transparency for special taxing districts
• School choice in Illinois
• Criminal justice reform opportunities

Click on the link below to read more.

The post Show-Me Institute’s October 2017 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to the National Institute of Corrections, “The crime rate in Missouri (2015) is about 18% higher than the national average rate.” Missouri is also eighth in the nation in its incarceration rate, imprisoning 530 people per 100,000 population in 2015.

Then there is the cost. The Department of Corrections budget has grown from $580 million in 2006 to $710 million in 2016. In the last five years that growth has been driven chiefly by adult institutions. The only good news in Missouri’s prison data is that as of 2012, Missouri paid $22,350 each year per inmate, well below the national average of $32,142.

Missouri is not alone in struggling with crime and incarceration rates. High crime rates in the 1970s led many state legislatures to adopt harsh sentencing guidelines, including mandatory minimum sentences for various crimes. The states embarked on “throw the key away” crime control measures that increased the prison population at great public expense. But research has shown that there are diminishing returns to harsh sentences—they don’t always result in a reduction in crime. States have been reexamining their sentencing laws, and the results are promising. Early research from around the country suggests that some criminal justice reforms, such as those that address mandatory minimum sentencing, can reduce crime rates and save states money. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has published an excellent paper on the matter.

According to the Missouri Department of Corrections’ just-released Profile of Institutional and Supervised Offender Population (page 33), of the 30,754 members of the prison population, 41 percent are there for either nonviolent crime (7,377 inmates) or for drug-related crimes (5,403 inmates). These two offender groups, incidentally, are the fastest-growing populations since 2011. Imagine how much Missouri could save if courts had the flexibility to sentence these nonviolent offenders to treatment programs or probationary periods prior to locking them up—while still retaining the ability to treat violent or habitual offenders harshly.

Furthermore, imagine the benefit in human capital if nonviolent and drug offenders were sentenced to treatment or probation instead of being warehoused in state institutions with few opportunities for self-improvement.

The model reforms ALEC recommends are known at the Justice Safety Valve Act, and have been introduced in the Missouri general assembly as HB1037 and HB1046. If these reforms can do what they have done elsewhere—protect Missourians while avoiding unnecessary sentencing and costs—they are well worth consideration.

The post Criminal Justice Reform: Addressing the Costs of Incarceration appeared first on Show-Me Institute.