As Missouri’s legislative session winds down, lawmakers took a major step toward eliminating the state’s individual income tax. Both chambers of the general assembly approved HJRs 173 and 174, a proposed constitutional amendment. Voters will now decide whether to authorize the legislature to begin the process of phasing out the income tax.

Here’s a short summary of what voter approval of the amendment would set in motion:

• Requires the general assembly to enact legislation reducing the state’s top individual income tax rate based on revenue growth until it is eliminated. Once eliminated, the tax could not be reinstated.
• Authorizes the general assembly to expand the sales and use tax base to include additional goods and services. Currently, Missouri’s constitution doesn’t allow sales and use taxes to be expanded to any service or transaction that wasn’t taxed on Jan. 1, 2015.
• Requires that any changes to state or local sales and use taxes that generate additional revenue be offset. At the state level, that revenue must be used to reduce the individual income tax rate. At the local level, governments receiving additional revenue must reduce one or more other local taxes by a commensurate amount, choosing from a specified list that includes earnings taxes, personal property taxes, real property taxes, or local sales and use taxes.

This move comes at a time when Missouri is struggling to keep pace nationally. As my colleagues and I have written about repeatedly, the state’s population growth has been flat, and economic growth ranks in the bottom half of the nation. And while Missouri has reduced its top income tax rate from 6 percent to 4.7 percent over the past decade, many neighboring states have moved faster. Across the country, states are enacting policies that make them more attractive in the competition for families, workers, and investment, and it’s clear that states with low or no income taxes are pulling ahead.

If Missouri wants to change that trajectory, its tax structure has to be part of the conversation.

As I wrote when I testified on the amendment, this proposal does not eliminate the income tax overnight or answer every question up front. What it would do is give the legislature clear authority to move in that direction if voters approve. That matters because any serious effort to phase out the income tax will, sooner rather than later, require a rethinking of the state’s tax structure, especially its outdated and broken sales tax system.

In that sense, the amendment is less about a single policy change and more about forcing decisions state officials have avoided for years. What is a fiscally responsible pace to phase out Missouri’s individual income tax, the state’s single largest source of revenue? How much faster could that process move if the state modernizes its sales tax base? How should the tax policy actions of surrounding states impact that timeline?

There will undoubtedly be difficult tradeoffs if voters approve the proposed amendment, but it’s important to recognize that they are unavoidable. Improving Missouri’s economic prospects will require decisive action and an acknowledgement that maintaining the status quo has produced slow growth and will leave the state further behind its peers.

There are real concerns about how a transition like this would work and who it would affect. Those details will matter, and they will be decided through the legislative process if voters approve the amendment.

With the legislature’s work complete, the remaining question is when voters will weigh in. Under Missouri law, the governor has until May 22 to determine whether the measure will appear on the August or November ballot. The timing of that vote will shape how quickly Missouri can begin addressing these questions and close the gap with states that are already ahead.

The post A Big Step toward Ending the Income Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The investigation and review are intended to protect ratepayers, assess Missouri’s future energy needs, and manage Missouri’s natural resources effectively. These are good objectives, but the hard question is finding a policy solution to match all those goals.

One option I have written about, consumer-regulated electricity (CRE), is worth considering. (If you’re unfamiliar with CRE, you can click the link to learn more.)

Instead of placing new data centers on the existing regulated grid, we could match data centers with an independent CRE utility (CREU). Furthermore, if electricity demand for these data centers falls short of its sky-high projections, then the excess capacity will have been a poor investment. This protects ratepayers by putting private companies on the hook for that risk instead.

There are benefits to data center developers as well. A CREU can be structured around the developer’s reliability needs and preferred energy resources. Projects could also require less transmission, as new generation facilities could be built near their customer base. CRE could be a reliable, economical, and sustainable energy solution to meet current and future energy needs.

Speed to operation is vital in today’s economy, and data center projects have experienced difficulties securing permissions from the various layers of government. While many hurdles would still remain (like local zoning), CRE projects would not require permissions from the Missouri Public Service Commission since they would not be connected to the regulated grid. At the federal level, Senator Tom Cotton recently introduced the DATA Act, which would exempt CREUs from federal regulations not designed for on-site, self-contained power systems. While still early, this legislation is worth monitoring and could further increase the speed to operation.

The governor has made it clear that he wants to meet growing energy demand in a way that protects ratepayers and addresses Missouri’s current and future energy needs. CRE is a policy approach that matches those objectives.

The post Consumer-Regulated Electricity (CRE) and Data Centers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There is hope. Several members of Missouri’s state board of education are serving on expired terms. Missouri’s governor-elect has an opportunity to reshape the state board of education. By appointing new members who are committed to bold, innovative policies, the governor can break the cycle of dysfunction that has plagued the board and department. (Does anyone recall the disaster called Common Core or the Top 10 by 2020 initiative?) These appointments can bring a renewed focus on empowering families, fostering school choice, and improving student outcomes across the state.

Missouri has long struggled with underperforming schools and bureaucratic inefficiency. A revamped board with a clear vision and a commitment to reform could transform the educational landscape. For instance, new appointees could push for greater autonomy for local school districts, promote policies that expand educational options for families, and ensure that resources are directed where they are most needed—toward helping students succeed.

If President-Elect Trump follows through on his pledge to return education to the states, Missouri must be ready to rise to the occasion. This begins with a strong, forward-thinking state board of education. It is time to seize this moment of opportunity, embrace meaningful reform, and truly make Missouri education great.

The ball is in the governor-elect’s court. Missouri’s future—and the future of its children—depends on what happens next.

The governor-elect is currently looking for qualified individuals to serve on the state board of education. If you are interested in serving, notify the governor-elect of your interest by completing the form here.

The post Make Missouri Education Great appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post SB 727 Reaction with Susan Pendergrass and James Shuls appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Charter schools could be coming to Boone County. If a group of teachers, parents, or citizens wants to open a charter school and has a solid application, it can now apply to a university or the state charter school board for sponsorship. The group does not need the approval of a local school board.

Eligibility for the MOScholars scholarship program for low-income students and students with disabilities has been greatly expanded. There are no longer geographic restrictions for who is eligible. The income limits for eligibility have been raised. The total amount of tax credits that can be dedicated to the program was increased from $50 million to $75 million. And the dollar amount of the scholarship was raised to bring the number in line with the Foundation Formula amounts for similar types of students.

Districts in the state’s largest communities must now put a potential switch to a four-day school week to a vote. There is also a financial incentive that will be remitted to any district that remains open five days per week.

There is also an important change to the state’s foundation formula. Previously, students were counted purely based on attendance. Now, the formula will be 50 percent based on attendance and 50 percent based on enrollment.

The minimum teacher salary was raised from $25,000 to $40,000 for all teachers and from $33,000 to $46,000 for teachers with master’s degrees.

Districts will be able to attempt to fill teaching positions in “hard-to-staff” schools by placing teachers higher on the salary schedule than they normally would be.

There are many more provisions to SB 727. It represents a defensible trade-off between increasing options for Missouri students who need them and investing in the system. I look forward to the governor signing it.

The post A Win for Education in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

-The legacy of the outgoing governor
-The rise of the four-day school week
-Disincorporation in small communities
-Patrick Tuohey returns to the Show-Me Institute
-The threat Medicaid poses to Missouri’s financial future

Click here to find the newsletter.

The post Show-Me Institute’s March 2024 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A couple of weeks ago CNBC released its annual list of the Top States for Business 2023. Missouri was an unimpressive 32nd out of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Wondering what pulled us down? Well, this year CNBC decided that workforce quality would get the most weight of the 10 components of the index. And in that category, Missouri ranked 49th. We must not stack up too well against other states when it comes to the percentage of workers with college degrees or even industry credentials. Apparently, we also don’t compete well on the outmigration of educated workers, or on worker training programs, or on worker productivity.

So, imagine my surprise when the governor had a press conference just days later to announce a long list of Missouri’s “top” rankings. On some list we rank first in on-the-job-training. That would be for the number of participants, not quality or outcome, but still. There’s a list out there where we’re ranked second for apprenticeships and one where we are fourth for small-business jobs. The list of rankings is described as “incredible statistics that prove why Missouri is the Show-Me state.” Incredible indeed. Sadly, the governor’s list doesn’t include any source information, so we can’t tell who is saying all these complimentary things about our state.

As someone who follows the Missouri K-12 education system pretty closely, I’m not that surprised by the CNBC ranking. Education in the state is in a downward spiral. Last year, 70 percent of our fourth-graders scored below grade level on a nationally administered test. These children are moving on to the reading-to-learn years, and they haven’t learned to read. Middle school isn’t any more promising. Less than one-quarter of our eighth-graders can do math at grade level, according to the latest (2022) national assessments, and just 28 percent have grade-level reading skills.

When students start high school without having mastered the skills they need to succeed, the effects are predictable. Last year, just 60 percent of our 2022 high school graduates met the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (DESE’s) criteria for being college or career ready. It’s hard not to feel sorry for the 40 percent who walked across the stage and were handed a diploma even though they were unprepared for the next stage of their lives. Since we’re looking at rankings, did you know that last year Missouri ranked 43rd for the percentage of high school students who took a college-level Advanced Placement (AP) test in high school? We’re not talking about passing an AP exam; only one in five high school students even took one. Also, less than 8 percent of graduating high school students completed the Career and Technical Ed (CTE) certificate program.

What are the consequences of the poor job we’re doing of preparing our students for life after high school? According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the percentage of Missourians with bachelor’s or master’s degrees has been declining in recent years. Not by much —just from 31.9 percent for bachelor’s to 31.7—but is that the direction we want it going? There’s a similar trend line for graduate degrees, which had been increasing every year until a couple of years ago, when they began to decline.

We seem to have a workforce problem, and it appears to be getting worse. Our K-12 enrollment has been declining since before the pandemic and will continue to decline based on the size of recent kindergarten classes. And within those smaller groups of students, the percentage of kids who are at grade level is declining. Smaller percentages of smaller high school graduating classes will be ready for the next stage in their lives. We need leaders who are ready to confront those facts and do something about them. The future of the state depends on it.

These leading indicators may signal what’s next for our work force, but it’s not too late to turn things around. States all around Missouri are letting parents pick where their children attend school—public or private—and having state education money follow them. Families in these states can tailor the education of each of their children, even when those needs differ within the same family. Neighboring states are implementing aggressive early literacy programs, with Mississippi being a standout, and rethinking high schools. Innovation and true accountability are happening . . . elsewhere. Meanwhile, Missourians are being handed a cherry-picked list of statistics that we’re supposed to get excited about.

The post Cherry-picked Data Can’t Hide the Truth about Missouri’s Workforce appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Several days later I received a reply by, of all things, email! Thankfully, the Governor’s office sent just what I wanted: the statistics and sources behind its claims. I must note that the original graphic was updated after I sent the Sunshine request (e.g., the word “low” was removed from “Low Cost of Doing Business”). Also, while each of the office’s claims does correspond to a study, index, or ranking in the real world, your mileage may vary regarding their persuasiveness.

Some citations used by the governor are very subjective. Several of the statistics, such as “On-the-Job Training” and “Apprenticeships” were from Missouri Government agencies, which doesn’t strike me as the most unbiased source of information. The document I received also—somewhat—answers my question from the last post and clarifies the statistic as “New Apprenticeships,” but the website’s graphic remains unchanged in that regard.

In some cases, the claim is ambiguous; the second-place ranking for state-level veteran benefits is based on the number of distinct benefits offered but does not consider that one benefit may be much more or less valuable than another. Again, a very subjective ranking.

And even when the statistics could be represented more favorably for the governor, they remain misleading. The “Fourth for Personal Income Tax” is certainly not measuring the lowest or highest personal income tax rates. There are eight states with no income tax (nine if you include New Hampshire), and Missouri isn’t one of them. It turns out that the governor’s office was relying on a report that ranks governors, not states. The “personal income tax” metric is derived not only by the level of income tax, but how much it has changed over each governor’s term—the governor can thank his special session last October for getting him so highly ranked on this metric.

I do appreciate that the governor’s office didn’t drag its feet with my request and provided sources for each of the claims, but I shouldn’t have had to submit a Sunshine request in the first place. It should be standard practice for the government to include sources for the claims in the documents they produce and, more to the point, practice transparency without hiding behind a fax machine. Thankfully, there are organizations like the Show-Me Institute that employ summer interns who can hold our government accountable.

*pats self on back*

If you are interested in checking out the sources yourself, click here to see the .pdf file I received from the governor’s office.

The post Just the Fax, Ma’am: Dubious “Rankings” Press Release Emphasizes Importance of Transparency (part 2) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

And what’s being done? Judging from the latest press conference held by the police chief and mayor yesterday, not much:

The Violent Crime Reduction Initiative first unveiled at a news conference in mid-May and doubled down on by officials Wednesday after the latest spike in violence involves what’s described as an aggressive collaboration between police and a host of other groups, who have ventured into some of the poorest neighborhoods to knock on doors, offering social services, and promising enhanced city services to further spread the gospel of crime prevention.

Several community activists and those working with KCPD say the new strategy encourages more collaboration between police and local organizations. But they also say it’s not all that new of a concept. Others are even less optimistic, pointing to a fractured relationship between police and the community, and a focus on criminals instead of the underlying causes of violence. [Emphasis mine]

With continuing attempts at defunding the police, city leaders have done a bang-up job of making Kansas City less safe. While I’m as big a booster as any of my hometown, it’s become increasingly isolated from the rest of the state in its effort to adopt California’s prerogatives rather than Missouri’s.

Like most things involving human interactions, Kansas City’s crime problem is complex. But it shouldn’t take, or appear to take, a professional sports team considering a new home in a neighboring city and county for Kansas City officials to get serious about their most fundamental charge of public safety. Sure, it may be more fun as a government official to show up to parades and wear construction helmets at groundbreakings, but the hard work of governing is far more mundane—and far more important—than waving a pennant during winning years and taking credit by proxy for the athletes assembled by the city’s professional sports franchises.

Kansas City officials need to get back to basics—not just to keep the Royals, but because it’s what they owe all their citizens. We’ll see if it’s too late to keep the baseball team, but to hear the governor talk about it, it’s possible that cake is already baked.

The post Kansas City Leaders Need to Get a Handle on Crime Situation—Now appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As I wrote nearly a year ago, Missouri is not prepared for the next recession, and the inadequacy of the state’s rainy-day fund is a big reason why. That’s also why my colleagues and I included rainy-day fund reform as a top priority in our 2022 blueprint. Missouri’s rainy-day fund has serious problems; it’s too small, too hard to access, and it’s too hard to restore funds once they’re used.

Missouri’s rainy-day fund has two big problems: it ranks in the bottom half of states in available savings, and complicated rules make it difficult to use. As a result, it’s never once been called upon for budget stabilization purposes. When a recession hits, and state tax revenues decline, it’s helpful for governments to have some funds set aside to help plug the immediate shortfall to avoid unnecessary interruption in services until revenues rebound. Today, Missouri’s fund has around $385 million, which would only cover approximately one third of the revenue shortfall our state experienced during the Great Recession of 2008. And without a robust rainy-day fund, states are left to rely on relief from the federal government to keep them afloat.

State lawmakers had a unique opportunity this year to fix what’s been broken since Missouri’s current rainy-day fund was created in 1999. State tax revenues were up and there were more federal relief funds available than could reasonably be put to good use. This meant that for the first time in a long while, there was ample money available to invest in Missouri’s financial future. There were even efforts by the governor and the Missouri House to create a new fund, but they ultimately fell apart toward the end of this year’s legislative session.

Rising inflation and the COVID-19 pandemic illustrate the importance of governments preparing for rainy days, but also the risks associated with overreliance on federal funding to keep our collective heads above water. As the price of gas and other goods continue to soar, economic forecasters are now warning of a potential downturn in the near future. It is unfortunate Missouri’s lawmakers didn’t seize this year’s opportunity to get a better umbrella, because the chances are we’re going to need one sooner rather than later.

The post Missouri Forgot Its Umbrella appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Prior to being halted in 2017, the state’s LIHTC program was plagued by several serious problems. As I’ve written many times before, Missouri’s program was one of the biggest in the country and was repeatedly shown to be ineffective, costly, and utterly lacking in accountability. Sufficiently addressing each of the program’s shortcomings has proven to be elusive for the state’s elected officials, with legislative attempts to reform the program failing over the past three years. Absent any legislative action, the governor and MHDC decided to bring the program back on their own terms by administratively implementing changes.

The MHDC’s changes include a yearly cap on state credits, a scoring rubric for project applications, and a new pilot program that allows more credits to be redeemed over the first five years (of ten total) of the project. At first glance, the changes seem to touch on each of the major issues with the program outlined above. But do they make the program worthy of taxpayer expense?

In theory, the yearly cap should make the program less costly because Missouri used to match each federal LIHTC on a dollar-for-dollar basis. A cap would mean that is no longer possible. The scoring rubric could add some accountability by showing how the chosen projects stack up against those that aren’t awarded funding. And the pilot program should make the credits more enticing to investors, and in turn, increase the value for which they can be sold.

After details of the revived program were made public, an optimistic real estate developer was quoted saying he expected the new state LIHTCs to sell for roughly sixty cents on the dollar. It is important to keep in mind what this means: Developers are happy to trade each taxpayer dollar they receive for a little more than half its value. How can LIHTC be a good investment for Missourians if the people who profit off the program believe what they’re receiving is worth much less than what state taxpayers are paying? It will be some time before there are enough data to determine the full effect of these changes, but even if this estimate of improved sale value is proven true, Missourians would still be receiving a very poor return on their investment.

The program’s revival is certainly a good deal for already-wealthy developers. But shouldn’t the governor and MHDC instead ensure that Missourians have an affordable housing policy that’s good for everyone?

The post More to Be Done on LIHTC appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The pandemic has already taken a serious toll on our government’s budget. The virus, combined with lockdowns and other restrictions placed on businesses, has drastically decreased economic activity, which in turn has lowered state and local tax revenues. For the fiscal year that ended on June 30th, Missouri’s collected 6.6 percent less in revenues than it did the year before. And this year, the governor has already restricted more than $400 million in state spending, indicating his budget staff believes the decline in tax revenues will persist for some time.

Over the past eight months, Missouri has been unable to spend hundreds of millions in state tax dollars that otherwise would have gone toward priorities such as education and public safety. At the same time, the cost of other state programs has increased as a result of the virus. It is true that some of these issues have been temporarily alleviated by generous federal relief efforts. But federal support cannot fill the hole created by COVID-19 for every state priority (the federal government places restrictions on where the money can be spent). More importantly, this funding is a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

Missouri was unprepared for the current situation in large part because state spending has been growing for years. We must also realize that it’s becoming increasingly likely the virus will be defeated before tax revenues return to pre-pandemic levels. For that reason, it’s time to start thinking about how our elected officials will respond once the state’s budget is no longer being propped up by federal aid.

In the coming months, Missouri’s policymakers should consider every option that could help contain the state’s runaway spending trajectory and shrink the size of government to match the revenue projections of the years ahead. There’s no doubt the task will be difficult, but it’s all but certain the cost of acting now will be lower than if we wait until it’s too late.

The post Special Session a Reminder of Budgetary Troubles appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As the process currently works, CIDs and TDDs are approved by a vote of only people within the proposed taxing district. This bill would have subjected CID and TDD approval to a vote of the people in the city in which the district is located. This would have solved one of the biggest problems with these taxing districts: Many are not subject to a broad-based, representative vote for approval. Some districts can even be approved by only a handful of property owners if the district is small enough, yet the costs are externalized to all taxpayers who spend within the district.

As Show-Me Institute researchers have mentioned before, special-taxing districts like these are on the rise. According to financial reports received by the Missouri State Auditor, there are 495 CIDs and 237 TDDs in Missouri. CIDs collected over $56 million and TDDs collected more than $73.5 million in 2018. Hundreds of districts are taking millions away from Missourians, and they may not have had a say in it.

The problems with CIDs and TDDs are clear, and lawmakers should act. There is still an opportunity to give taxpayers increased representation in a special legislative session, but it seems that for now, the problems with CIDs and TDDs will continue.

The post Districts Denied Once Again appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Policymakers must recognize that this is a one-time injection of money, so they must not create any new programs that require recurrent funding. Economic recovery will take enough time on its own, and higher taxes will only slow it down.
• Further, stimulus money should only be spent on or reimbursed for pandemic-related expenses, whether they be totally new costs or additional costs incurred from programs facing additional strain. This would allow jurisdictions already transferring money from unrelated funds to pay for virus-related expenses to be reimbursed and the transferred-funds replenished. Spending money outside these parameters would likely lead to new programs and higher taxes in the future.
• Transparency is paramount. Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent, especially in a crisis where governmental decrees curtail normal behavior. While it is necessary to move quickly in a crisis, government action should be out in the open in order to strengthen public trust.
• To meet these objectives, Missouri counties and cities should publish their spending—all of it, since money is fungible—as a condition of receiving stimulus dollars. Extending the Treasurer’s Show-Me Checkbook project to receive and include these records would be a logical approach. That way, state policymakers can confirm that local governments have complied with the stimulus transparency requirement, and taxpayers can simultaneously track local spending themselves, now and in the future.

The governor has assembled a task force to determine how Missouri’s money will be spent. Abiding by these principles can help keep government honest and taxpayers informed.

The post Stimulus Spending Checklist appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Missouri Division of Professional Registration has provided a list of statutes and regulations that it is requesting to be waived due to the COVID-19 crisis. This twelve-page document contains requests from 17 different professional registration boards. The requests are all related to occupational licensing and require the governor’s approval.

Many requests have already been approved. Several licensed occupations, including optometrists and nursing home administrators, are now able to meet their license renewal requirements online, which was not allowed or limited before. Missouri pharmacies are now allowed to use pharmacists and pharmacy technicians that have out-of-state licenses and can seek assistance from out-of-state pharmacies. There has also been a huge reduction in restrictions on health care professionals, making it easier for them to practice and coordinate with others in the field.

The Division of Professional Registration is not alone in looking to change some rules. A few lawmakers requested that the Department of Public Safety waive the restriction on selling mixed drinks to go, and in an executive order, the governor ordered the “suspension of any prohibition of the sale of un-prepared food by restaurants to the public.”

These regulations make it harder for workers to get and keep jobs. But if lifting some of these regulations is helping consumers and businesses during this crisis, we should wonder if they’re necessary when things go back to normal. One can only hope that many of these changes will stick, and we will continue to have fewer business regulations moving forward.

The post Missouri is Lessening Regulations, and Hopefully It’ll Stick appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My colleagues and I have written extensively about how Missouri could increase access to health care. One of the most crucial steps in a pandemic is allowing every competent health care professional from around the country that is willing to help in Missouri the ability to do so. License reciprocity does just that. Physicians from Illinois, Kansas, and elsewhere can now come to the Show-Me State—both physically and virtually—and begin their important work.

Waiving the distance requirement for collaborating physicians and APRNs will also significantly improve access to care. Previously, for APRNs to prescribe and treat patients in Missouri, they had to collaborate with a licensed physician that was within 75 miles. As the number of Missouri counties with positive coronavirus cases increases by the day, allowing health care providers to move around and serve each corner of the state without restriction is paramount. This change will both help contain the virus and improve access to care across Missouri.

Perhaps the biggest concern with the coronavirus outbreak is that it could overwhelm Missouri’s health care system, and it is good news that the governor has acted quickly to better prepare our state. But this is just the beginning, and there are still a variety of areas where removing unnecessary government barriers would strengthen Missouri’s response. The Show-Me Institute will keep shining a light on these important policy changes as our state navigates these trying times.

The post Governor Approves Waivers Expanding Health Care Supply, Including License Reciprocity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

After graduation, districts and schools follow up with their graduates to see what they’re currently doing, and then DESE compiles the data. I connected the DESE data with the federal data set that labels each district with different locale types, ranging from big cities to remote rural areas. You can see the results in the graph at the top of this post (the data may not add up to 100 percent due to data privacy and inability to contact all students).  

Looking at the 2018 data, 33 percent of rural district students entered employment and 35 percent enrolled in a 2-year college following graduation, both of which were the highest percentages for each category out of all locales. On the other hand, rural schools had 21 percent of its students attend a 4-year college or university, the lowest percentage out of all locales.

Workforce preparation for rural communities, thus, should have a strong focus on preparing students for high-demand, well-paying jobs they can enter soon after graduation. This could mean students taking the proper classes and having access to the credentials and skills training they need to be set up for a successful career immediately. Taking job-specific courses or earning college credit during high school should also be an option to help bridge students from high school to technical school.

Missouri needs to consider the data when planning for workforce development. There are good jobs available to Missourians, and the state needs to make sure students are ready to fill them.

The post Workforce Development for Rural Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Currently, Missouri requires licenses for 240 occupations, 37 of which are for low- to moderate-income jobs. Many licensing boards list “good character” or not having committed “any offense involving moral turpitude” as a requirement for applicants or renewal of licenses. While it may make sense to prohibit some ex-offenders from obtaining a license, these vague statements shut out almost anyone with a criminal record regardless of the nature of their offense, the time that has lapsed since they served their time, or if they have successfully completed rehabilitation. It also precludes an employer from exercising its discretion in determining a person’s fitness for a position.

On one hand, it seems wise to refuse licenses in certain cases—say someone with a history of substance abuse or drug dealing applying for a pharmacy technician license. On the other hand, blanket bans of ex-offenders create obstacles to getting jobs that may have no connection with the crime committed and make it more likely that the offender will eventually return to prison. Other states—including Arizona, Indiana, Minnesota, and Tennessee—have shown there is a better way forward that strikes the balance between safety and second chances.

Instead of allowing licensing boards to have wholesale bans on those with criminal records, Fresh Start Legislation would require that boards list specific crimes that are directly related to the occupation in question and consider factors such as time passed since the last conviction and the nature of the offense. .

Under Fresh Start laws, boards may only outright deny applicants if they have a conviction within the last five years or if the conviction was for a violent or sexual crime. This means more dangerous criminals and repeat offenders would still be able to be screened out. But if someone has an older conviction for a nonviolent crime and has remained crime free since being released, their application must be considered and they are allowed to appeal the decision if denied.

Missouri’s Governor recently mentioned the need for better prisoner education so prisoners can be released ready to enter the workforce. But how much can educational programs accomplish if ex-offenders are being automatically shut out of hundreds of occupations? By removing unnecessary obstacles to ex-offenders leaving prison, a Fresh Start law would be a good first step to help these people get jobs and fully reintegrate into their communities. 

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

In 1939 the power to appoint members of the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners was given to the governor in order to combat rampant local corruption. Kansas City is the only major city in United States whose local elected political leadership does not control the police. In speaking with several former members of the Board of Police Commissioners—appointed by different governors and serving at different times with different mayors—I learned that governors are not all powerful nor are mayors powerless.

First, the observation that the Kansas City police department lacks local control is misleading. Members of the commission, including a seat reserved for the sitting mayor, are all local figures who must be residents of Kansas City. The tradition for appointing commissioners is to choose people who already have distinguished themselves in the community—thus reducing the chance that people use their position as a political platform. And while the appointments are made by the governor with Senate approval, none of the former commissioners with whom I spoke ever felt as if they were serving a gubernatorial agenda. Some reported hearing from the governor’s office about every 12 to 18 months, and then just to be kept abreast of lawsuits. Despite the power of appointment, Republican and Democrat governors alike do not exercise significant authority over the KC police in practice.

While the police board provides local control, they do not represent local political control. In other cities, police chiefs must be wary of municipal politics and palace intrigue that can only distract them from their main concern: public safety. In Kansas City, police chiefs are a step removed from politics because they do not owe their position directly to elected officials.

None of this is to say that the mayor does not have a significant amount of power. Commissioners all indicated that there was deference given to the various mayors who served on the commission—even though their level of participation varied. For example, Mayor Funkhouser was engaged in police processes. Mayor Berkeley was attentive but passive. Mayor Barnes’ attendance was sporadic and picked up toward the end of her tenure.

Though Kansas City has a city manager form of government, the mayor has one power that researchers have found is among the most consequential any mayor can have: the veto. While a mayoral veto can be overridden by the vote of 9 councilmembers, it presents him with a great deal of influence over legislation—including the budget of each city department. What greater power over local policing could there be than the budget?

If a mayor wanted the police department to hire more social workers, hire more uniformed officers and/or provide more and different training, decrease the number of officers with take-home cruisers, or increase foot patrols and community policing, he has a great amount of leverage to do so. The power of the purse makes the mayor a more consequential figure than any single governor, any single police board commissioner, any single police chief. No Missourian has more power over policing in Kansas City than the mayor—should he wish to use it.

The current extraordinary challenge to public safety requires an extraordinary response from city leaders. The tools are in place—but will we have the leadership?

The post Who Runs the KCPD? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We know that it can be challenging for small communities to find Calculus, Physics, or AP teachers for their high schools. But we also know that there are bright and talented students all across the state who deserve, at the very least, the opportunity to take the courses required to apply to the University of Missouri. The legislature has cleared the way for students and parents to be able to sit down with their school counselor, figure out what classes they need, and seamlessly register to take those courses either in the building or online.

Students will also be able to enroll in MoVIP as full-time virtual students. This can be a game-changer for rural students, students who are being bullied, and for others who want options beyond their assigned public school. Providing more options for students and parents is essential to making sure that all Missouri students can reach their potential, and course access is one way to do that.

Researchers and analysts at the Show-Me Institute have traveled to Jefferson City multiple times to provide testimony on this important issue. We’ve included it in our legislative Blueprint for the last two sessions, we’ve written blog posts and essays, we’ve talked about it on the radio, and we’ve produced a video on why Missouri students deserve to have their school districts provide free access to courses that the districts are unable or unwilling to offer. It is truly a victory for Missouri families that course access is so close to being a reality.

Of course, good policy requires good implementation. The new law requires every school district and charter school to inform parents and students of their new rights under this legislation, including adding it to all registration documents and home pages. In addition, the legislation has guardrails in place to make sure that students’ progress is monitored and that they are on track with the coursework. Both of these safeguards are critical to the success of this legislation.

If this law becomes final, we will follow the progress on the implementation closely to make sure that it gets done and done right. We will also help let Missouri families know that their education choices have been expanded. But we won’t stop working to give parents even more options – from education savings accounts to charter schools in any district. For now, though, it’s time to recognize a job well done by the Missouri legislature.

The post Finally, a Victory for Parents and Students in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.