Crime, Partisanship, and Policing: What Really Happens When Cities Change Leadership?

by Jon Scaccia February 4, 2025

Picture this: a fiery debate at a city council meeting. One side argues that electing a Republican mayor will drastically reduce crime with “tough on crime” policies, while the other insists that Democratic mayors promote equity in policing and justice. It’s a narrative we’ve all heard, plastered across headlines and campaign ads. But does the party of your mayor really matter when it comes to crime, policing, and public safety?

Spoiler alert: Not as much as you might think. Recent research that spans decades and nearly 400 U.S. cities has cracked the case—and the findings are more surprising than any political pundit would have you believe. Let’s dig into this fascinating study to uncover what’s fact, what’s fiction, and what it all means for the future of urban leadership.

The Big Question: Does Mayoral Partisanship Drive Crime and Policing Outcomes?

For decades, politicians have wielded crime statistics like weapons in an election battle. Republicans promise a crackdown on crime through aggressive policing, while Democrats often pledge reforms to address racial inequities and rebuild trust between police and communities. These promises suggest that the political party in charge can profoundly shape a city’s crime rates and policing policies.

But a new study—spanning almost three decades of data from nearly 400 American cities—has taken a closer look. By analyzing election outcomes, crime statistics, and policing data, researchers used advanced techniques like regression discontinuity and difference-in-differences methods to separate political rhetoric from measurable reality.

And the results? Let’s just say they might ruffle a few feathers on both sides of the aisle.

What the Data Says: No Party Controls Crime

Here’s the kicker: whether a city elects a Democrat or a Republican as mayor, there’s no significant impact on crime rates, police staffing, or overall spending on criminal justice. That’s right—those campaign promises about slashing crime or achieving sweeping reforms? They rarely translate into measurable changes.

Even racial disparities in policing showed little variation based on mayoral partisanship. The only faint signal? Democratic mayors were slightly more likely to appoint Black police chiefs and increase the share of Black officers on the force. However, even these changes didn’t show robust downstream effects on arrest rates or racial disparities in police interactions.

How Could This Be?

If crime and policing aren’t swayed by the party in power, what’s driving these outcomes? The study points to a few key factors:

1. Institutional Constraints: Mayors don’t have unlimited power. City councils, state laws, police unions, and budget restrictions all play major roles in shaping policy.
2. Public Expectations: Crime reduction is often driven by broader trends—think economic conditions, demographic shifts, or social movements—rather than local policies.
3. Policy Consistency: Despite differences in campaign rhetoric, mayors from both parties often converge on similar policies once elected, especially in areas like policing where public scrutiny is high.

In other words, cities operate like complex machines with many moving parts. Swapping out one cog (even if it’s the mayor) doesn’t necessarily change how the machine works.

Why It Matters: Busting Political Myths

This research isn’t just an academic exercise—it’s a reality check for voters, politicians, and policymakers. The study dismantles the idea that electing a particular party guarantees specific outcomes on crime and policing. Instead, it suggests we need to look beyond partisan politics and focus on the systemic factors that truly influence public safety.

For example, police unions wield significant power over hiring, promotions, and disciplinary actions. Economic policies at the state or federal level often shape the root causes of crime, such as poverty and unemployment. And national trends—like the opioid crisis or the rise of social media—can ripple through cities in ways no mayor can control.

The Bigger Picture: Rethinking Accountability

If a mayor’s party affiliation doesn’t determine crime outcomes, how should we hold local leaders accountable? Here are a few ideas:

• Focus on Transparency: Voters should demand clear metrics and regular updates on public safety initiatives, regardless of party.
• Support Evidence-Based Policies: Local governments should invest in strategies backed by research, such as community policing or violence interruption programs.
• Encourage Collaboration: Crime reduction requires cooperation between city leaders, law enforcement, nonprofits, and community members.

Ultimately, this study challenges us to think beyond the partisan divide and embrace a more nuanced understanding of what drives change in our cities.

What’s Next?

This research is just the beginning. While it shows that partisanship has limited effects on big-picture outcomes like crime rates, it raises intriguing questions about other areas where mayors might exert influence. For instance, could they play a bigger role in adopting innovative policing technologies? What about tackling issues like homelessness or mental health, which are closely tied to public safety?

The answers may require even more granular data and creative research methods. But one thing is clear: solving complex urban challenges will take more than red or blue leadership—it will take bold, evidence-based action.

Transform Your Science World:

The role of science has never been more important—or more contested. Stay ahead of the curve with This Week in Science! Our free weekly newsletter delivers powerful stories, inspiring updates, and research you can trust. Together, we can ensure science leads the way in critical conversations. Sign up today to transform not just your understanding of science, but how it shapes our society. If you liked this blog, please share it—every referral helps us bring science to more people who need it.