The Kansas City Star recently published a story examining the city’s gun violence problem as Kansas City hosts matches during the World Cup.

The article raises a legitimate concern. Kansas City, Missouri, suffers from far too much violence. Recent shootings have again drawn national attention to a problem local leaders have struggled to address for years.

The Star largely frames that problem through the lens of Missouri’s gun laws. Missouri allows permit-less carry. It broadly preempts local firearm regulations. Legislative efforts to tighten gun restrictions have gone nowhere, even after highly publicized tragedies such as the Chiefs’ Super Bowl rally shooting.

Reasonable people can conclude that these policies contribute to violence.

But if we are serious about understanding why Kansas City experiences so much violence, there is an obvious question that deserves attention:

What about Kansas? The state line is not hundreds of miles away. It is literally a road.

Kansas has permit-less carry. Kansas does not require firearm registration. Kansas does not impose waiting periods. Kansas does not require universal background checks for private firearm sales. Kansas broadly preempts local governments from adopting their own firearm regulations.

In other words, Kansas and Missouri have remarkably similar firearm laws, yet the outcomes on violence are very different.

The Star notes that Kansas City, Missouri, averages roughly 30 homicides during June and July, compared with four in Kansas City, Kansas. That is a remarkable difference. Accounting for population, Kansas City, Missouri, still experiences roughly twice the homicide rate of Kansas City, Kansas.

If neighboring jurisdictions with similar firearm laws experience dramatically different homicide rates, serious observers should be interested in what else might explain the difference. They should certainly acknowledge it.

The question is not whether gun laws matter. The question is whether they are sufficient to explain the difference in homicide numbers. The Star asks the first question. It largely ignores the second.

The post If Gun Laws Explain Kansas City’s Violence, What Explains Kansas? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One of the most common mistakes in public policy is assuming that because one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second. Crime declines after a new program is launched, so the program gets credit. Crime rises after a policy change, so the policy gets blamed. Often, the evidence for either conclusion amounts to little more than timing.

The KSHB story quotes Jackson County Prosecutor Melesa Johnson, who said she believes SAVE KC is playing “a real role in the success that we are seeing.” Perhaps it is. The problem is that belief is not evidence.

Violence rises and falls for many reasons: gang conflicts, police deployment, prosecution decisions, demographics, economic conditions, and the churn of individual offenders. A before-and-after comparison cannot isolate any one cause.

That is why researchers do not determine whether a program works by simply comparing crime rates before and after implementation. They look for evidence that the intervention itself produced measurable changes that would not otherwise have occurred. Jackson County’s COMBAT program has long suffered from this same problem: public claims of success without rigorous evaluation.

To its credit, SAVE KC has been careful to acknowledge on its website that multiple factors influence violence trends; it does not claim sole responsibility for recent declines. That’s a welcome departure from what we’ve seen before. But public officials are already drawing connections between the program and declining violence. That may ultimately prove justified. But Kansas City has heard similar claims before.

The Kansas City No Violence Alliance (KC NoVA) offers a warning. KC NoVA was once praised as an innovative violent-crime strategy. But a U.S. Department of Justice review found no statistically significant effect on homicides, group-member homicides, or aggravated assaults after two years.

In 2014, city leaders were celebrating the lowest number of homicides since 1972. Public officials were quick to claim credit. “We’re making progress,” proclaimed then-Mayor Sly James, citing targeted police work, community engagement, and anti-crime initiatives for the decline. But after homicides continued to rise in subsequent years, Mayor James’s confidence disappeared.

The lesson is not that violence-reduction initiatives never work. The lesson is that confidence should follow evidence, not precede it.

Rather than asking whether a new program coincides with lower crime, reporters should ask what evidence exists that the program caused the decline. Has an independent evaluation been conducted? Are outcomes being measured against comparable groups? What metrics are being tracked? How will success be defined? What would constitute failure?

Lower homicide numbers are worth celebrating. But celebration is not evaluation. Before officials claim victory, and before reporters repeat the claim, Kansas City deserves evidence that the program worked.

The post Crime Is Down in Kansas City. That Doesn’t Prove SAVE KC Worked appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The piece focused on five cities: Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Indianapolis, and Los Angeles, and detailed each city’s experience of homicides.

But what is noteworthy for Kansas Citians is that, based on the Post’s reporting of “crime data from 52 of the country’s largest police departments,” it appears that Kansas City may have the highest homicide rate for 2025—notwithstanding a reduction from previous years.

The homicide rate indicates homicides per 100,000 population; it is a useful tool for comparing cities with different total populations. While Kansas City’s total homicides in 2025 will likely be lower from the peak of 182 in 2023, when adjusted for population, it appears we may be on top. (St. Louis will likely have an even higher rate, but was not included in the Post’s analysis due to its size.)

This should serve as a reminder to all Missourians that it is not enough to reduce crime, though that is welcome. We must adopt policies that demonstrate results year over year rather than congratulate ourselves for drops that may have nothing to do with public policy. And if Kansas City does indeed end 2025 with the highest homicide rate in the country (out of the 52 cities selected for the study), it’s a reminder that public safety—and specifically homicide—must become a greater concern.

The post Kansas City Homicide Rate May Be National Leader for 2025 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Figure 1: Violent Crime Per Capita (St. Louis, Kansas City, and Springfield)

The chart below shows the violent crime per 100,000 people from 2004 to 2023.

Source: FBI Crime Data Explorer (CDE)

The violent crime statistic includes aggravated assault, homicide, robbery, and rape. The chart above displays the convergence in crime numbers between the three largest cities in Missouri. The specific per capita rates in 2023 for the respective cities are: St. Louis (1,439.3), Kansas City (1,483.1), and Springfield (1,178.1).

This would seem like good news for St. Louis when looking at the chart above and seeing a steady decline in violent crime, and it is, but it doesn’t change the fact that the city still ranks within the top 10 most dangerous cities in the United States by many metrics, along with Kansas City.

Crime being down in St. Louis is good. In my opinion, the bigger takeaway from this data is the fact that violent crime in Kansas City has remained stagnant rather than decreasing, and Springfield’s rate has steadily risen over the last 20 years. None of our major cities is close to being considered safe compared to similar midwestern cities like Des Moines or Omaha.

Omaha claims transitioning from its officers using only enforcement (applying the law) to also including intervention (stopping the crime taking place) and prevention (taking preventative measures before crime begins) has reduced violence. Other cities have studied Omaha in hopes of replicating its success, including Kansas City. Unfortunately, based on the data, it hasn’t yet made a difference in Kansas City.

St. Louis should be commended for the drop in violent crime in the city, but major Missouri cities still have a significant problem with violent crime. If we want to become a state that people want to live and work in, our cities need to prioritize fixing this problem.

The post Statistics Shows Crime Numbers Converging for Major Missouri Cities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen to a Podcast with One of the Authors

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Bryan C. McCannon, Dean of the School of Business and Economics and Robert S. Eckley Endowed Professor of Economics at Illinois Wesleyan University, and data analyst with Sicuro Data Analytics, LLC.

They discuss a new report written for the Show-Me Institute titled “Crime Trends and Criminal Justice Policies in Missouri’s Largest Cities”. The report examines the rise in violent crime and homicides in Missouri since 2015. Bryan breaks down how the report compares Missouri’s crime trends with other similar cities, explains how certain policies may have contributed to the increase, highlights some issues with crime data, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Crime Trends and Criminal Justice Policies in Missouri’s Largest Cities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Back in 2016, I noted that Jackson County Executive Frank White said of the tax at its renewal: “Anything that we can do to help our citizens in terms of prevention, and being proactive in what we do, is really what this (tax) is about.”

I pointed out at the time that the DARE program, funded by the COMBAT tax, has failed to show positive results in the research studies that have examined its effectiveness.

Four years later, in 2020, I mentioned an audit of the tax by then-Auditor Nicole Galloway. She wrote: “The county has not developed a plan for ensuring that performance evaluations of the programs funded by COMBAT are performed annually as required by county code.”

Now, in 2024, precious little seems to have changed. In a column for The Kansas City Star, I noted:

COMBAT doesn’t appear to measure outcomes. The closest it comes is a Community Impact Report, which relies chiefly on anecdotes and testimonials — many from people with financial interests in supporting COMBAT. A clue COMBAT doesn’t monitor program effectiveness is a note in the report indicating the number of those served by various programs are based on “grant application projections.” Not only is this relying on self-reporting by those receiving funds, but doing so at the moment they apply, when their plans are the most optimistic and least tested.

Kansas City’s homicide rate reached a record high in 2023. It has been a little lower so far this year, which is good. Unfortunately, it’s not clear that anyone knows why. Maybe it’s just a matter of chance.

While the lower homicide rate is great news, if we don’t measure the effect of the money we are spending, we risk not doing enough of what is working. That assumes any of it is working. We just don’t know, and that isn’t good enough for policymakers or the families of those lost.

If Kansas City leaders want COMBAT to be taken seriously, we must measure the effectiveness of the program and focus funding on what works.

The post Jackson County COMBAT Is Still a Failure appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

City leaders’ influence over policing was confirmed when I spoke to a number of former members of the police board last year. And it was confirmed again when Kansas City Police Chief Rick Smith was interviewed this week by KCMO Radio’s Pete Mundo. Smith said (starts at 3:44):

We’re still funded by the city. So we still talk with the city manager and go through the budget process just as every other department head in the city does. We go through this process and talk about, “hey, where can we make gains, where can we not?” The last two years we’ve had additional officers, it’s been a handful.  Sometimes it’s 25; I think last year a dozen. We’re getting some, it’s just slow.

There are plenty of discussions to be had about what ought to be done to help the Kansas City police better respond to rising crime rates, and not all of it can be done through policing. But we know that policing matters and specifically that increasing the number of police reduces homicides. The fact that the number of police in Kansas City has fallen during a years-long spike in homicides is unconscionable. Whatever policies are adopted to combat this increase, it is good to know that those charged with making the decisions understand how policy is made.

The post Kansas City Controls Its Police Department appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“There is still work to do because even one homicide is too many,” [Mayor] James said. “But I have faith in the collaborative and strategic approach of KC NoVa. This year’s data tells us that so far we are making great strides in the right direction.”

Fast forward to today—after years of a nation-leading spike in homicides (currently #5 in the nation with 108 in 2018 as of this writing)—and those same people seem to want to deny any affiliation with policing. The mayor, whose role as a member of the police board was highlighted in 2014, seems to shrug off any role in policing today. In a KCPT panel discussion about the 50th anniversary of the Kansas City Race Riots, moderator Nick Haines raises a question about minority hiring in the police department, “Mayor, you’re on the police commission.” James responds, “Yes . . . and…?” to laughs from the audience. (Starts at 35:32.)

In a more recent press conference, Mayor James complained bitterly about lack of gun control legislation and political ideology in the state legislature. But as a recent KSHB report on homicides made clear, there is no evidence that Jackson County, Missouri, has significantly more gun ownership than, say, Johnson County, Kansas, or that gun ownership in Kansas City has increased over the same time frame that homicides have spiked. It’s not the guns.

There is research, however, that indicates that increasing the number of police officers does reduce crime. KSHB’s Andy Alcock makes that point in his report, too. In fact, according to FBI statistics, Kansas City has fewer police officers per capita than all other cities with high homicide rates. What’s worse, since 2011, the number of uniformed police officers in Kansas City has declined.

As I laid out in a Kansas City Star guest column, no one in Missouri has more power over policing in Kansas City than the mayor’s office. What is lacking is not power, but will. And until Kansas City leaders get serious about adopting policies and policing methods that actually contribute to reductions in violent crime, we are figuratively whistling past an ever-growing graveyard.

The post Kansas City’s Unrelenting and Unaddressed Homicide Problem appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The report examined “the severe civil disturbance that occurred in Kansas City during the week of April 8, 1968 and [made] a report to the people of Kansas City.” Among other things, the report contained recommendations for avoiding future riots and “for the establishment of harmonious relations among the people of this city.”

One of the areas examined was Kansas City’s police—their number, recruiting, training, and tactics. At the time of the report, Kansas City had 932 police officers and was facing reductions. On page 48 the report offers:

Instead of its police force being reduced, this city needs a total of at least 1,500 police officers. Even the existing statute contemplates two police employees for each 800 persons in the population. Since 1961 Kansas City’s population has increased by approximately 15%, and its land area has been nearly doubled by annexation. Expected police service has increased by 58%, but the number of law enforcement personnel has remained approximately the same as it was in 1961.

The commissioners’ call for more police to reduce crime is borne out by subsequent research. Yet Kansas City today has 1,283 sworn law enforcement officers, down 121 from the 1,404 officers they had in 2010. The city never achieved the 1,500 mark recommended by the commission’s report. Nor has the city successfully adopted the commission’s recommendation to rely more heavily on foot patrolmen—but that may be a function of not having enough officers.

Based on 2017 data, Kansas City has the sixth-highest homicide rate in the United States per 100,000 population. Based on FBI statistics, of the ten cities with the highest homicide rates, Kansas City has the fewest officers per 10,000 population.

A years-long, nation-leading spike in the number of homicides is arguably as “severe” a “civil disturbance” as one can imagine. Numerous factors are causally linked to crime, including education, poverty, and income inequality. Yet when it comes to the one aspect of public safety that policymakers can control, policing, Kansas City has fallen short of its 1968 goals.

The post Kansas City Fails to Meet Goals Set by 1968 Report appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This legislative afterthought was brought to mind after reading Councilwoman Teresa’ Loar’s guest column in the Star last month. She wrote.

We have spent an inordinate amount of time on this issue [building a new single airport terminal] at City Hall. And while it is very important, we are neglecting areas that are critical. Two of those issues that greatly affect all citizens of Kansas City are the escalating homicide rate in our city — currently 30 percent higher than last year — and the impact on families of higher water and sewer bills.

Loar is right; so much political attention is being spent on issues that are not important to Kansas City families. As this is being written, there have been 85 homicides in Kansas City, 50% higher than last year, the highest so far in a three-year spike. What good is a new airport terminal or a convention hotel if Kansas City has a national reputation for homicide? What could be more important than getting a handle on murders?

Our mayor likes to complain that Kansas City is the only major city in the country that does not control its own police board. But the mayor is not without his own considerable power over policing. In addition to sitting on the Board of Police Commissioners ex officio, Mayor James has veto power over the city budget. Not a dime is spent by any Kansas City department—including the police department—without his tacit approval. There is no greater power any politician can have than the power of the purse. Yet this power isn’t exercised to tackle the hard problem of violent crime; no, it is spent pursuing civic luxury items our city neither needs not can afford.  

If the city officials at 414 East 12th Street have trouble focusing on their priorities, perhaps they ought to ask themselves with each ordinance, “How does this help reduce the number of homicides in Kansas City?” Would that be good for the children? Most definitely yes. 

The post Is It Good for the Children? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But the Kansas City of right now is floundering. Our population growth is flat and our economic growth is weak. We’re in the midst of a years-long spike in the homicide rate, which is one of the nation’s highest. As The Sentinel pointed out in a recent article, “in Kansas City you were seven times more likely to be murdered than you were in New York City.” Though Chicago grabs headlines for having had an almost-unfathomable 762 homicides in 2016, The Sentinel points out, “Chicago is only 4 percent more lethal. There is no solace in that.”

How did we get where we are? The question seems unanswerable. One answer may be police resources.  The Sentinel tells us that New York has “more than twenty times as many police officers to handle those killings. In sum, the NYPD had seven times more officers per homicide than the KCPD.” Meanwhile, the Kansas City police department annual reports show that there are fewer officers in uniform today then there were in 2009. While the new city budget includes an increase for public safety, it is not clear if this would allow for new officers to be hired, or if the police and fire departments are spending efficiently.

To no one’s surprise, The New York Times reports that high crime hinders economic and population growth. New research indicates that:

when violent crime falls sharply, wealthier and educated people are more likely to move into lower-income and predominantly minority urban neighborhoods….

 “When cities feel safer, that opens people’s eyes,” Ms. Ellen said of the willingness of new groups to consider these neighborhoods.

All the subsidized coffee shops and condominiums will be for nothing if the city is unable to deal with runaway crime. And tax increases to spur development will likely fail if the basic safety needs of a community are neglected. What Kansas City needs is not more wide-eyed development schemes, but more effort delivering basic services efficiently and effectively, if we are to have any hope at growth.

The post Kansas City, Economic Development, and Homicide appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The speaker also talked about the history of the tax, claiming that it was promulgated to increase public safety spending in response to the high murder rates in the late 1960s. We looked up the murder statistics for Kansas City, and indeed there was an increase in the late 1960s, peaking at 134 homicides in 1970. The number decreased afterward, but never returned to its previous rate. The speaker offered no evidence to support the idea that the imposition of a regressive flat tax had anything to do with declining murder rates. He certainly offered nothing to suggest that phasing out the earnings tax now would lead to an increase in homicides. The tactic seems intent not on educating voters, but on frightening them.

Are things better now? Over the last few years, Kansas City has averaged 101 murders each year, and the trend is pretty flat since 2000. Overall, Kansas City has one of the highest murder rates in the United States, and while national data for 2015 are not yet available, the jump in homicides in 2014 may return us to the top ten, where we were in 2013. 

Back in the 1960s, Kansas City had a high murder rate. Today we have a high murder rate and an earnings tax. Is this the type of "progress" of which Kansas Citians can be proud?

The post Kansas City, Death and Taxes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.