Who is more lenient on crime? Democrats or Republicans?

A plethora of Republican candidates and officials accused their Democratic counterparts of being lenient on crime during the lead-up to the 2024 elections. Worries regarding the safety of urban areas have long been a significant — and influential — political concern.

But to what extent do elected representatives genuinely affect crime levels? Are municipalities led by Democratic mayors less secure compared to those governed by Republicans? Do they allocate fewer resources to police or adopt more stringent approaches to enforcement or hire diverse personnel? Recent research analyzed data from 400 American cities over nearly thirty years and discovered that the political affiliation of mayors had minimal impact on crime statistics and law enforcement.

The Gazette conversed with one of the researchers, Justin de Benedictis-Kessner, an associate professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, about their findings. This interview has been edited for conciseness and clarity.

---

What motivated your team to investigate whether there is any data supporting partisan assertions about which side is more effective on crime?

I don’t believe those claims are entirely fabricated by one side of the political spectrum. One particularly fascinating aspect of crime, especially in urban areas, is that individuals on both sides of the political aisle have made assertions that Democratic-run cities are poorly managed, particularly regarding crime and public safety. This includes individuals from President Trump, who alleges that Democrats have ruined cities and rendered them more perilous, to post-2024 election sentiments from the Democratic side asserting that Democratic leaders are mishandling crime and failing to meet voter expectations.

Thus, we sought to examine the assertion: Compared to Republican city leaders, are Democratic officials making urban areas less safe in any capacity? Are they altering police funding or staffing over the past thirty years? And if they are indeed reducing police budgets, is that resulting in increased crime rates?

Your research investigated the impact mayors had on police funding and staffing, as well as how their political orientations influenced the demographic composition of police forces and chiefs. What did your research reveal?

Much of the discourse surrounding policing since 2020 has been focused on how Democrats are reevaluating the function and substantial budgets of police departments across the nation. Many Democrats assert that they are transforming policing practices — diversifying the police workforce, reducing racial inequities in arrests, and altering funding structures. We aimed to explore that assertion as well. Are Democratic and Republican mayors decreasing police budgets, changing staffing procedures, and arrest methodologies, particularly concerning race? As it turns out, that claim does not hold true.

Democratic leaders are not slashing police budgets, nor are they significantly altering the racial composition of police forces compared to Republicans. They are not increasing the number of female police officers either. These factors could substantially influence community perceptions of the police and their operational methods. If we witnessed changes in police hiring practices, other research indicates it would likely reduce racial disparities in police interactions and the use of force against civilians. However, we simply do not observe those demographic changes.

Moreover, we do not see significant variations in the nature of police interactions with racial minorities in urban settings. Some of our findings suggest Democrats might lessen the proportion of Black individuals arrested, but these findings are certainly not definitive.

If there were indeed a measurable effect — say, on racial arrest rates — we would anticipate all analyses to yield consistent findings, or at the very least similar conclusions. Instead, we observe what seems to be a slight negative impact on the Black share of drug crime arrests, and perhaps the Black share of total arrests, yet these effects are neither substantial nor uniform across our numerous research methodologies.

Thus, we cannot assert with a high degree of certainty that these results are not merely random variations occurring across different cities. Therefore, I wouldn’t interpret these outcomes to imply, “Democrats are lessening racial disparities in arrests.” If Democratic officials are accomplishing that, they are not doing so at a level that is statistically distinguishable from how Republicans manage racial dynamics in arrests.

Politicians frequently reference a city’s overall crime statistics or declines in particular crime types as validation of their efficacy. What role do a mayor’s political affiliations play in crime statistics or the types of crimes that occur?

I believe anyone in criminology would recognize that it’s not solely local policies, especially in the short term, that instigate significant differences in crime or arrest rates. Arrests reflect discretionary decisions made by law enforcement, whereas crime is influenced by numerous factors. It does not hinge solely on the number of police officers or their capabilities but also includes various elements like economic conditions, youth job training initiatives, and diversion programs aimed at minimizing recidivism — all of which contribute. The broader national economic context can play a substantial role in crime reduction compared to isolated policies enacted by a mayor.

Often, these policies might exert minor influence, but they rarely result in drastic crime fluctuations and certainly not in an immediate context.

Crime presents a formidable challenge to address. Implementing a singular policy does not result in the eradication of crime. Therefore, attributing increases in crime to a particular political party is counterproductive to enhancing public safety in urban settings.

Over the past three decades, virtually all American cities have witnessed significant reductions in crime rates, encompassing both violent and property crimes. However, crime levels can vary considerably within cities. Certain localities will observe fluctuations in crime and arrest rates.

It’s tempting to hold a specific mayor or local officials like prosecutors accountable, but often these patterns relate to broader systemic trends. They might manage some marginal changes, as many do, yet it remains challenging to link those shifts to specific policies implemented by particular politicians.

So, does neither party deserve accolades when crime rates decline, nor should they be held responsible when crime rates rise?

Precisely. Multiple policies could impact crime figures, yet neither party is outperforming the other in terms of effective implementation.

What are some aspects you couldn’t assess or uncover in this study that require additional exploration?

I anticipate that future research, along with efforts from many other scholars currently engaged in similar work, will focus on examining a singular city or a select few cities within the past five years, collecting comprehensive data on policy adjustments, police conduct, and crime occurrence or citizen-police interactions.

Many of these researchers are effectively contributing to informing policies about enhancing community perceptions of the police, improving citizen interactions with law enforcement, and reducing crime in a manner conducive to public safety for all while addressing racial biases.

Our research indicates that these dynamics have little to do with political affiliations or who the political figures are from a partisan standpoint. They likely relate much more to the training of our police forces or the hiring practices of police personnel. That is where a wealth of promising research exists. I would be keen to see politicians reference some of that evidence showing what genuinely works and highlight their initiatives to enforce those policies in urban areas.