A regression analysis of city budget allocations and crime rates across two decades, and what the data actually shows.
Public debates about crime in Chicago often center on how the city spends its money. This project asks what the data says.
Proponents argue that more officers on the street means faster response times, greater deterrence, and lower crime. Their stance is that cutting police budgets puts communities at risk.
Thinkers from Martin Luther King Jr. to Angela Davis have argued that addressing root causes of crime, including poverty, housing instability, and lack of opportunity, is more effective than policing.
Using publicly available budget and crime data from 2001 to 2024, this analysis examines whether changes in departmental spending shares are statistically associated with changes in crime rates.
This analysis can't establish causation. Without a natural experiment, policy shock, or other source of independent variation to isolate from the many factors moving alongside budget decisions, economic shifts, demographic changes, federal policy, the correlations here can't be cleanly attributed to spending itself.
Each category was chosen because it represents either a direct theory about crime prevention or a commonly cited alternative to policing. Here's what each includes and why it was included.
The largest single line item in Chicago's budget. Covers sworn officers, civilian staff, equipment, and operations for the Chicago Police Department.
The central variable in the analysis. If increased policing deters crime, higher police spending share should correlate with lower crime rates.
A consolidated category combining the Department of Human Services, Department of Family and Support Services, and child and youth services programs. Covers social safety net programs, youth intervention, domestic violence services, and more.
A direct test of the social investment hypothesis. If investing in support services addresses root causes of crime, higher spending here should associate with lower crime rates.
Combines the Department of Housing, Department of Planning and Development, and community development allocations. Covers affordable housing programs, neighborhood investment, and economic development initiatives.
Housing instability and concentrated poverty are well-established correlates of crime. Spending here tests whether investment in place-based stability associates with lower crime.
Covers library operations, programming, and facilities across Chicago's branch system. Libraries are often cited as community anchors that provide after-school programming, job resources, and safe public spaces.
Research has linked library access to reductions in youth crime. Included as a test of whether publicly accessible community infrastructure associates with safety outcomes.
Covers street cleaning, waste collection, alley maintenance, and rodent abatement. Often cited in broken windows theory, which argues that signs of physical disorder signal low social control and invite crime.
Included to test whether investment in the physical maintenance of neighborhoods associates with lower crime, separate from direct social or policing interventions.
Covers the Chicago Department of Transportation's infrastructure work including street lighting, traffic signals, sidewalks, and road maintenance. Street lighting in particular has an established evidence base in crime prevention.
Included as a test of whether physical infrastructure investment, especially lighting and accessible streets, independently associates with crime outcomes.
A consolidated category covering fleet and facilities management, asset and information services, architecture, construction, energy management, and environmental sustainability. Represents the city's internal administrative and operational infrastructure.
Included as the reference category in regression models. Spending here represents operational overhead rather than direct service delivery, providing a neutral baseline for comparison.
The share of Chicago Public Schools' total revenue that comes from state sources. Unlike city budget categories, this captures school funding from outside Chicago's direct budget control. Includes state education aid and formula funding.
Education investment is one of the strongest long-term correlates of reduced crime. State funding share was used (rather than total CPS spending) to isolate funding that varies independently of local budget decisions.
Before examining what the data shows, here is how the city's spending has looked across two decades, both as shares of the total budget and in inflation-adjusted dollars per resident.
Police has consistently held the largest share of Chicago's budget, though its relative weight has shifted over time alongside other departments.
In inflation-adjusted dollars per resident, police spending far exceeds all other departments and has grown steadily. Click any department in the legend to isolate it.
Budget shares correlate with crime at first glance, but most of those correlations have a simpler explanation.
Crime in Chicago declined substantially from 2001 to 2024, and budget compositions shifted over the same period. When year is controlled for, most budget-crime correlations disappear, suggesting they reflect parallel trends, not independent relationships.
Despite high bivariate R² values (0.72–0.81), police funding share, human services share, and library share all lose statistical significance once the time trend is accounted for. The data does not support strong independent claims about any of these.
Streets & Sanitation share and CPS state funding share retain statistically significant associations with crime after controlling for year, though both in positive directions that are difficult to interpret causally and may reflect socioeconomic proxies rather than direct effects.
Homicide rates, the most reliably reported crime type and least susceptible to detection bias, show the weakest associations with budget variables across all model specifications. No budget predictor significantly predicts homicide rates after controlling for year.
A multi-step pipeline from raw public data to regression models, with careful attention to common pitfalls in budget-crime analysis.
Budget data from Chicago City Clerk records, crime incidents from the CPD Open Data Portal, population from the U.S. Census, and CPI from the BLS were assembled into a single annual panel.
All dollar values were converted to constant 2024 USD using annual CPI averages, ensuring year-over-year budget comparisons are not distorted by inflation.
Incident-level crime records were classified using FBI UCR Index codes into violent, property, and non-index categories. Homicides were flagged separately as a reporting-bias robustness check.
Budget figures were expressed both as share of total city budget and as inflation-adjusted per capita spending. Crime counts were converted to rates per 100,000 residents.
Bivariate OLS models (one predictor at a time) served as the primary analysis, chosen to avoid multicollinearity issues. Full multivariate models were run as a secondary robustness check.
All models were re-run with calendar year as a covariate to identify which budget-crime associations survive after accounting for the overall time trend in both variables.
All data used in this analysis is publicly available.
Chicago Police Department via City of Chicago Open Data Portal. Incident-level records with IUCR crime classifications.
Chicago City Clerk Annual Appropriation Ordinances. Department-level allocations from 2001–2024.
Chicago Public Schools Annual Budget Reports. State funding as a share of total CPS revenue.
U.S. Census Bureau via tidycensus. Decennial counts, ACS 1-year estimates, and post-2020 Population Estimates Program data.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average. Annual averages used for adjustment to 2024 USD.