Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which party's platform has been more effective in reducing crime rates in US cities since 2020?
Executive Summary
Since 2020, evidence does not support the claim that one political party’s platform has been consistently more effective than the other at reducing crime across U.S. cities; targeted local programs led by Democratic mayors show promising declines in some cities, but large-sample academic research finds no systematic partisan effect on crime or policing outcomes. Local case studies—often highlighted by advocates and media—demonstrate noticeable declines in homicides where specific strategies were implemented, but multi-city econometric studies covering hundreds of cities from 2000–2025 find no detectable causal impact of mayoral party on crime rates, police budgets, or employment [1] [2] [3]. The picture is mixed: successful local interventions exist alongside broad research showing crime outcomes are driven more by program design, context, and nonpartisan factors than by party labels.
1. Why Baltimore and other Democratic-led programs get attention—and what they actually show
High-profile local initiatives led by Democratic mayors—Baltimore’s Group Violence Reduction Strategy, Detroit’s ShotStoppers program, and San Antonio’s Violent Crime Reduction Plan—are credited with substantial declines in homicides and shootings in specific cities, including a reported 21% decline in Baltimore homicides and a 34% drop in the most recent year cited [1] [4]. Media narratives and city statements emphasize these outcomes as evidence that a systemic, community-focused approach works, highlighting investments in violence prevention, community programs, and gun safety [5]. These are real, measurable successes at the municipal level, but they represent case-study evidence: strong for local accountability and promising program design, yet limited in generalizability because success depends on local context, implementation fidelity, and concurrent trends that broader studies are designed to control for [4].
2. What rigorous multi-city research finds about partisanship and crime
Large-scale academic studies examining nearly 400 medium and large cities over decades report no consistent effect of mayoral partisanship on crime, policing expenditures, or police employment, using multiple causal inference techniques and long panels of data [3]. A January 2025 paper concluded that mayoral political affiliation explains little about subsequent crime trends or police resource allocation [2]. Another 2025 study reiterated that neither party’s control reliably predicts improvements or deteriorations in crime, arguing that campaign rhetoric about being “tough” or “soft” on crime often has limited translation into measurable changes in policing outcomes [6]. These findings suggest that systemic, cross-city causal drivers matter more than party labels when measuring aggregate crime changes.
3. The prosecutorial dimension: progressive prosecutors and property crime signals
Research focused on progressive prosecutors—elected officials who often run with reform-oriented platforms—found statistically higher property and total crime rates associated with their terms in the 100 largest counties from 2000–2020, while violent crime showed limited change [7] [8]. Authors using quasi-experimental designs reported relative increases in property crime following progressive prosecutor elections, though they also note that absolute crime trends fell in many jurisdictions regardless of prosecutorial type, and violent crime did not spike as some critics predicted [9]. This nuance indicates that prosecutorial policy can influence certain categories of crime, but the effects are category-specific and not a clear indictment or vindication of a party platform.
4. Reconciling case studies with cross-city null findings: scale, selection, and mechanisms
The tension between local success stories and null results in large-sample studies can be reconciled by recognizing differences in scale, selection, and mechanisms. Case studies highlight targeted interventions with concentrated resources and tailored strategies that can produce meaningful local effects; large studies average across heterogeneous cities and time periods, diluting localized impacts and focusing on systematic partisan signals that may be weak relative to local policy variation [4] [3]. In other words, party labels are blunt instruments; what matters more are the specific programs, funding, leadership, and context that determine outcomes. Hence, a city with a well-designed violence reduction plan can succeed under a Democratic mayor, while another city under the same party might not.
5. What this means for claims about party superiority and policy implications
Claims that one party’s platform has been categorically more effective at reducing urban crime since 2020 are not supported by the weight of the multi-city research, although municipal examples show that particular strategies reduce certain crimes when properly resourced and implemented [1] [2] [7]. Policymakers and voters should evaluate crime policy on the basis of specific interventions, measurable outcomes, and local conditions rather than relying on partisan shorthand. The evidence calls for focusing on program design, monitoring, and replication of proven local strategies while recognizing that broad party affiliation of city leaders is a poor predictor of crime outcomes across cities [3] [5].