Over the past five years, the number of crimes committed in St. Louis has decreased, however the city is still widely perceived as dangerous. What are the actual crime statistics, what are their real implications, and what shapes public perception? Our panel of experts will address these questions and more.

Don’t miss this opportunity to gain valuable insights, share your perspective, and participate in an informed community conversation on crime and public safety in St. Louis. Two Opportunities to Attend:

Event Details
Wednesday, January 21
The Knight Center at Washington University

Tuesday, February 10
MAC West

Reception at 4:30 p.m., including beverages and light appetizers
Program and Q&A from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m.

Registration
Please register for this complimentary event by emailing events@showmeinstitute.org. Include your name and specify which date you will attend. Walk-ins will not be admitted.

The post Crime and Public Safety in St. Louis: Upcoming Events appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In March of this year, KSDK 5 published an article titled “St. Louis leaders say crime is at a historic low, but public perception takes time to catch up.” The issue is that this isn’t necessarily true. Perception does not always “catch up,” although there certainly can be lag effects between the reduction in crime and the perception held by citizens. In fact, there are over 30 years of surveys from Pew Research showing that Americans believe there is more crime in the United States in the year they were surveyed than the year before. Violent crime rates have dropped by almost half over the span of these surveys beginning in 1993.

Even at the local level, citizens have misperceptions about crime and where it is occurring. Brookings surveyed people from some of the biggest cities in the United States, including Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia. One of the most common complaints was fear of going downtown due to higher crime. Data show that downtowns accounted for a very small percentage of the increase in crime in these cities. For example, Chicago experienced a 48% increase in property crime between 2019 and 2022, but downtown only accounted for 6% of this increase.

The examples above demonstrate that numbers and time don’t always solve the issue of the perception of crime not matching reality. If St. Louis is to close the gap, it must start with the appearance of the city. Police Chief Tracy briefly mentions in a quote from the KDSK article that quality-of-life crimes need to be addressed.

Quality-of-life crimes (substance use, panhandling, etc.) have an impact on how people feel about a particular area. Former New York City police commissioner William Bratton believed this so much that he implemented “broken windows” policing back in the 1990s, which was intended to crack down on these lower-level crimes. The rationale behind this was that by preventing smaller crimes, it not only prevented worse ones from occurring, but also symbolized that the city had control over the area.

St. Louis would benefit from following in the footsteps of New York and addressing lower-level crimes. A short drive across the city is enough to see the number of panhandlers and abandoned buildings in the area. Downtown is a prime example of an area where worries of crime have contributed to empty buildings. Multiple restaurants downtown have closed or cut hours due to the lack of business this year.

Preventing these quality-of-life crimes and cleaning up the streets impacts where people choose to go and helps determine how safe they feel in an area. It’s intuitive that citizens will make judgements on levels of crime based on the conditions of buildings and what is occurring on the streets more than what data shows.

Public perception to is unlikely to shift based solely on crime statistics. 30 years of data demonstrate this. Instead, it would be more beneficial to take appropriate measures to clean up the streets regardless of how much crime numbers are going down, because people will always care more about their own intuition when it comes to safety rather than the numbers.

The post Waiting for Perception on Crime to Change Is Not a Winning Strategy for St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A new study in the Journal of Business Venturing Insights offers a window into how those perceptions shape decision-making. Researchers Kaitlyn DeGhetto and Zachary Russell surveyed over 500 entrepreneurs and prospective employees about 25 of the country’s largest cities. They asked participants to rate each city on three types of institutional risk: safety, political, and social.

For Missouri, the results are worth paying attention to. Both St. Louis and Kansas City made the list. Despite their differences in culture, governance, and media attention, the two cities are perceived in remarkably similar ways.

Safety was rated the most important risk factor overall, and here both Missouri cities ranked poorly. St. Louis came in 10th and Kansas City 11th, where #1 indicates the highest perceived risk. Respondents were asked to consider the likelihood that someone’s “security and physical well-being will be endangered due to the normalization of aggression and criminality.”

This isn’t strictly about crime statistics. It’s about whether people think a city feels dangerous. For both cities, the perception alone is a barrier to investment and attracting talent.

On political risk—concern over erratic leadership or self-serving government—St. Louis ranked 17th, with Kansas City 19th. On social risk, which includes concerns around discrimination, cohesion and inclusion, St. Louis was 13th and Kansas City was 11th.

The takeaway for state and local leaders is straightforward: it’s not enough to govern well. You also must be seen as governing well. That means doing the hard work of making cities safer, administration more competent, and communities more welcoming—not as mere public relations efforts, but as visible, measurable outcomes.

Reputation isn’t everything. But in a competitive national landscape, perception drives decisions. If Missouri’s cities want to compete, they’ll need to improve both the reality and the narrative.

The post Reputation and Reality Matter in City Governance appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a May 2021 national poll about education, parents were asked two times if they supported education savings accounts (ESAs), school vouchers, and charter schools. The first time, parents were just given the name of each program, and each of these policies received less than 50 percent support (44 percent for ESAs, 40 percent for school vouchers, and 47 percent for charter schools).

The second time, the poll included a brief description of each policy. Suddenly support grew to over 60 percent for all three policies (69 percent for ESAs, 62 percent for school vouchers, and 62 percent for charter schools). It seems that once parents understood what these policies meant, many changed their minds.

Without explanations, perhaps some confuse charter schools with snooty private schools or have no idea what ESAs are. But with just a brief explanation, many parents saw these policies as providing value and opportunity for students.

Educating ourselves and others on education policy topics such as ESAs, school vouchers, and charter schools can help people make more informed decisions.  I’d encourage you to check out (and share!) the Show-Me Institute researchers’ explanations of each of these topics (such as this infographic on various school choice policies). Sometimes, a brief explanation is enough to make a difference.

The post School Choice Options Becomes More Popular When People Know What They Are appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A lot of us who looked at that [cost] issue closely at the time that voters approved [it] fully expected this. We expected it was going to be a bigger project than was approved at the time, so in that sense it is not a surprise.

When Ruckus host Mike Shanin pointed out that no one in the pro-airport campaign made this point at the time of the vote, Heeter added [start at 21:21],

I think the city needs to step forward and talk candidly with the public about these kinds of issues because there is a growing perceptional issue; that’s really important.

Heeter is no ordinary pundit. He is a former member of the Kansas City Council and a former president of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. In 2017, Heeter consulted for Jones Lang LaSalle, one of the four finalists to build the new KCI terminal. Heeter is the embodiment of the city establishment. He has held high-level positions both as a public official and with private sector entities at the heart of plans for the new terminal. If he “fully expected” that costs would increase, it strains credulity to think he was the only one.

Yet days before the 2017 election, Heeter appeared on Ruckus and toasted the “fact-based campaign“ for a new KCI terminal. Heeter then cited the Kansas City Star editorial board’s call to “give the voters the facts they need to give an informed decision.”

The voters were not given the facts in 2017. The Show-Me Institute and others made this very clear at the time. The Star, heralded by Heeter as wanting the facts, themselves misreported the facts in their editorial endorsements. And Heeter himself, who then said that voters had been given all the facts, concedes now that he and others knew the numbers were, in fact, not factual.

The costs associated with a new terminal have been suspect since 2014, when Airport Terminal Advisory Group co-chairman David Fowler said, “Any dollar amount placed on any alternative is almost pretty random.“ It remains “pretty random” four years later. The people of Kansas City are right to be skeptical of their civic and political leaders on this issue; the latter have forfeited their credibility.

The post Were the #NewKCI Construction Cost Numbers Ever Real? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So just how much do we spend per student each year? This survey found that only 11 percent of people selected the correct range of $8,000 to $12,000. In fact, the national average is a little over $11,000, while Missouri spent on average $10,899 per student for the 2016–2017 school year.

Nevertheless, 31 percent of respondents thought America spends less than $4,000 on each student every year, while 29 percent did not know or did not want to answer.

Then the survey asked if people thought we spend too much or too little on education. For this question, however, half of the respondents were given the actual spending figure and half were not. Here are the results: 

Source: EdChoice, “2017: Schooling in America.”

When presented with the real numbers, the proportion of those who think spending is “too low” fell significantly. So when people say that our schools are underfunded, it seems that many base their opinion on estimates of actual spending that are too low.

Too often, our debates over education policy get hung up over funding even though many of us lack a clear picture of how much we are spending now, let alone how much should be spent. If we want to accomplish meaningful education reform in 2018, resolving to have informed discussions about spending would be a good place to start.

The post A New Year’s Resolution for Education Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, there is a terrible myth going around about teachers. This myth is pervasive and has been around for decades. It is the belief that teachers are badly underpaid.

Jay Greene, Distinguished Professor of Education Policy at the University of Arkansas, wrote about it in his influential 2005 book, “Education Myths: What Special-Interest Groups Want You to Believe about Our Schools and Why It Isn’t So.” Greene argued that when we compare a teacher’s hourly rate to those of other professionals, the pay is quite comparable. He also noted that we must consider other employment benefits, such as health care and retirement, which are typically more generous in education than the private sector.

Despite these arguments, the myth of grossly underpaid teachers has persisted. Recently, an Education Next poll asked respondents if they thought teacher pay should increase, decrease, or stay the same. Overwhelmingly, respondents said we should “increase” (47%) or “greatly increase” (14%) teacher pay. That in and of itself isn’t telling; if it were feasible, most of us would happily pay teachers more. The telling part is what happens when survey participants are given actual teacher salaries. When people are told how much teachers are paid, support for pay raises drops.

Most people greatly underestimate how much teaches actually paid. In the survey, the average guess for the national average teacher salary was $40,587. That is $17,672 less than the actual average of $58,258. It is also less than the average here in Missouri, where the average total teacher salary in 2016 was $49,060. In Saint Louis City and County, the average climbs to $58,701 (author calculations).

 About two years ago I had to battle this teacher pay myth in my own home. My son came home from school saying teachers didn’t make very much money, at least that’s what his teacher said. I said, “I bet she makes more than me.” So, we looked it up (both of our salaries are public information). As it turns out, his teacher made several thousand more than I do.

The problem with the teacher pay myth is that it undermines a very noble and valuable profession. As Harvard education professor, Marty West suggests, “To the extent that the public has a falsely low impression of [how] much teachers earn, that only makes it harder for us to attract talented individuals into the teaching profession.”

 If we keep perpetuating the notion that teaching is a thankless job and teachers are underpaid, we shouldn’t be surprised when we have teacher shortages. Instead, let’s be honest—teaching is a great profession and the pay isn’t bad!

The post Teachers Are Great, and the Pay Isn’t Bad! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It appears that some people can’t take No for an answer. The Aviation Department has announced what it calls “listening sessions” on its webpage, stating:

The listening sessions will be an open forum for residents to discuss their thoughts and concerns about the airport with Aviation Department leadership, and will include a short presentation to bring everyone up-to-date on previous planning efforts. Information gathered through community listening sessions will directly influence the terminal facility planning process and will be shared with City Council members. [Emphasis added.]

If the past is any indication, I question how much listening will occur. Will Aviation Department officials hear and understand the great risk to Kansas City travelers of spending over $1 billion and passing those costs onto airlines? Or will attendees be told that all the options have been considered, that mere renovation is just too expensive, and that the airlines have agreed to pay for everything? And while proponents probably won’t say that if we build a new terminal we’ll get more flights, but they will likely leave you with that impression. If it all sounds too good to be true, be on guard.

Who supports the new terminal? We can expect most members of the City Council to support a new terminal, as will the Chamber of Commerce. The usual pundits will weigh in with their usual opinions. The Kansas City Star will likely endorse a new terminal, as it has in the past. Not to be outdone, The Kansas City Business Journal has already weighed in with an underresearched story and editorial on security check point wait times.

We’ve seen it all before.

Stiffen your resolve, Kansas City. The proposal, the arguments and the supporters will likely be the same. They say they are listening—but who are they listening to?

The post Brace Yourselves: Another Single Terminal Sales Pitch Is Coming appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Strongly agree — 26 percent
• Agree — 9 percent
• Disagree — 14 percent
• Absolutely not — 51 percent

That’s a pretty strong vote of 65 percent opposition to the idea. Readers offered several dozen comments.

We at Show-Me had some immediate comments too. The least of which not being that you’d certainly have to work at the Star to be surprised by this result. Kansas City has had ruinous results in building big projects like this. For example:

• The Power & Light District remains a drain on city resources, having never lived up to the promises made by boosters.
• The Citadel Plaza project was never even built, yet it cost the city millions.
• The city got itself into a horrible bind by taking on huge responsibilities with Kemper Arena and then not meeting them.
• The city spent money studying a proposed streetcar expansion before voters had a chance to voice their views. They rejected it.
• The city spent hundreds of thousands pitching itself for the Republican Convention even though the economic impacts claimed by supporters were specious.
• The city proposed a $1.2 billion new airport terminal based on at least one false premise.

Furthermore, just as mega-events such as Republican Conventions and Super Bowls fail to generate economic benefits, stadiums and arenas fail as well. (Read here for studies by The Brookings Institution and The Atlantic.) Kansas City voters are wary of such promises, and they are either defeating such efforts as translational medicine taxes and streetcars or are demanding sign-off on efforts to build new airport terminals. Why this well-founded skepticism is surprising to anyone is itself a surprise. The city should focus on delivering basic and necessary services and leave the economic speculation to others.

The post Star Survey Results Actually No Surprise at All appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When it comes to political issues, Americans often are polarized, except about education. School vouchers are one example. In a recent national survey, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice found that almost three-fourths of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of Democrats favor vouchers. The difference between Republican and Democrat Party support was only 11 percentage points. Overall, 63 percent of Americans said they support school vouchers, compared to 33 percent who said they opposed the system.

The survey also found that more respondents perceived Democrats to oppose (54 percent) than favor (46 percent) school vouchers, which contradicts actual findings. This suggests that Americans may think that school voucher programs are a party issue, but in reality, they aren’t.

Last month, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a bipartisan transfer bill that would have allowed students in unaccredited public school districts the opportunity to attend non-religious private schools using public funds. He called the bill, “a dangerous voucher scheme.” He also claimed Missourians do not support school vouchers.

Vouchers are simply a method of giving students educational options. Thirteen states have adopted voucher programs, and yes, Missourians seem to be on board (62 percent favor school vouchers; 32 percent oppose).

The bipartisan effort was an important first step toward providing opportunities to kids with few options — and it was neither dangerous nor scheme-like. Studies such as the Friedman Foundation’s show the majority of Americans (and Missourians) want educational choice no matter which party most closely aligns with their beliefs.

The post School Vouchers: NOT A Party Issue? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We conducted a poll of Missouri voters and asked them a number of questions regarding school funding and school choice. When we asked participants how much they think we spend on each student per year, we found that the vast majority of Missourians have no idea. Seventy-two percent of Missouri voters either underestimated or were not even willing to guess how much Missouri spends in total expenditures per pupil. Approximately one-fifth of Missourians estimated that we spend less than $4,000 per pupil in current expenditures. In reality, we spend $9,400.

How does not knowing the facts allow for scare tactics to work? It’s simple. When people have more information, they are less likely to believe outlandish claims.

During the poll, we tested the impact of having spending information. We found that when individuals were told how much we spend on students, they were much less likely to say that spending is “too low.” There is room for honest debate in politics, even when it comes to education funding; but this debate should be based on the facts.

You can find the full poll on the Show-Me Institute and Friedman Foundation websites.

The post Survey Says . . . Missourians Dramatically Underestimate Education Spending appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That’s not a good breakdown for Aerotropolis supporters.

Do online polls always offer an impeccable snapshot of the electorate? Not generally, so sufficient salt-graining is required here. That said, if legislators think that it’s inevitable the law will quietly pass without anyone noticing, they may want to rethink that impression.

The post An Aerotropolis Intensity Gap? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.