Grant to reduce overcrowding at St. Louis County jail is ending as jail hovers near capacity 91%

By Lacretia Wimbley0%

4/30/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Optimism Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 22.7% saturation with 127 hits. Analysis detected 775 faulty-reasoning hits from 560 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.4% and a BS Rank of 91% (1,966 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.00% of the article peer group.

The MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge initiative has provided $6 million over the past decade for efforts to reduce the population at the overcrowded St. 
Louis County jail, and the grant is coming to a close. 
The Safety and Justice Challenge began in May 2016. 
The money will stop flowing on June 1, said Mandy Smith, grant manager for St. 
Louis County Justice Services. 
But jail officials said five programs implemented under the initiative will continue despite the grant ending. 
They include items like enhanced pretrial supervision; a public safety assessment tool that objectively scores individuals eyed for release on their potential for new criminal activity; expedited probation handling, in which Missouri probation and parole officers are embedded in the jail to quickly address probation violations, and Tap In Centers, where individuals can potentially get their warrants recalled, as well as new court dates. 
Jonel Coleman, acting director at the jail, said that through the initiative, the jail has managed overcrowding by releasing nonviolent offenders and reducing the need for additional jail beds. 
But earlier this month, Coleman noted the jail has been slightly over capacity lately. 
As of April 29, online data shows the jail had a population of 1,224, just under its stated capacity of 1,232. 
Although the population at the jail has fluctuated over time, it’s been rising steadily since 2023. 
“When we say we're overcrowded it doesn't mean that we have zero beds in here. 
It means that we have too many people with the same classification,” Coleman said. 
“Because of the overcrowding, (the initiative) doesn't seem as beneficial, but it's very beneficial when you consider the amount of people that aren't currently incarcerated.” 
Coleman has said the jail doesn't house people held on low-level offenses in the same area as someone with a murder charge, for example. 
Coleman said the enhanced pretrial supervision under the Safety and Justice Challenge has allowed at least 750 low-risk people to remain in the community while awaiting trial, instead of in jail. 
More than 1,300 people have been released from jail or had their cases expedited based on recommendations from the Population Review Team, which was established under the initiative eight years ago. 
The PRT is made up of public defenders, prosecutors, judges, community-based organizations and other court offices. 
The group meets weekly to review individual cases in the jail to discuss potentially releasing them or getting their cases processed more quickly. 
“We have a set list of individuals that we review there. 
We go through any changes over the last month and really just use it as a time to bounce ideas off one another,” Smith said. 
“A lot of these people come to the table with opposing views, but the overarching goal is public safety. 
We can all agree on that every time.” 
Coleman said the established work from the initiative will continue despite the grant ending. 
The jail has been criticized for its residents’ declining mental health and medical neglect after Robin Marshall-Smith died in custody last month. 
The jail also failed an American Correctional Association inspection last year. 
Leaders said they’re hopeful of passing the next one when inspectors return this summer. 
The facility currently has an 80-officer shortage, affecting operations and staff morale, jail leaders said previously. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.9%Lacretia Wimbley: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias5.9%This article: 5.5%Lacretia Wimbley: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 3.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 8.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion4.5%This article: 2.5%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias2.5%This article: 5.5%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect5.5%This article: 7.9%Lacretia Wimbley: 5.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias7.9%This article: 2.9%Lacretia Wimbley: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias2.9%This article: 5.9%Lacretia Wimbley: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 3.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Lacretia Wimbley: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error2.9%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Lacretia Wimbley: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 17.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect17.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.9%Lacretia Wimbley: 3.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority2.9%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 4.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.4%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon1.4%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 6.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 22.7%Lacretia Wimbley: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)22.7%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.3%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature4.3%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.9%Lacretia Wimbley: 4.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal3.9%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.2%Lacretia Wimbley: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.2%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.5%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground4.5%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote2.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.9%Lacretia Wimbley: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice15.9%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Lacretia Wimbley: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.6%

560 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers44%attributed speech316writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMandy Smith • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 64 words • 100.0% coverageJonel Coleman • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJonel Coleman • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJonel Coleman • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJonel Coleman • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJonel Coleman • 25 words • 100.0% coverageJonel Coleman • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJonel Coleman • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMandy Smith • 11 words • 100.0% coverageMandy Smith • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMandy Smith • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMandy Smith • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJonel Coleman • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jonel Coleman

100%flagged-word coverage
166 attributed words68% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.2 ptsWriter: 20.3%Jonel Coleman: 15.1%15.1%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%Jonel Coleman: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.