Data Analysis · Chicago · 2001–2024

Does How Chicago Spends Its Budget Predict Crime?

A regression analysis of city budget allocations and crime rates across two decades, and what the data actually shows.

2001–2024Years of Data 8City Departments 6Crime Outcomes 2Model Specifications

The Question Behind the Numbers

Public debates about crime in Chicago often center on how the city spends its money. This project asks what the data says.

The Police Funding Argument

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.

The Social Investment Argument

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.

What This Project Does

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.

What This Project Can't Do

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.

The 8 Spending Categories in the Model

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.

Police Department

Direct Theory

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.

Human, Family & Youth Services

Direct Theory

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.

Planning, Housing & Community Development

Direct Theory

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.

Chicago Public Library

Direct Theory

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.

Streets & Sanitation

Environmental Proxy

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.

Transportation

Environmental Proxy

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.

Internal Operations & Infrastructure

Control Variable

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.

CPS State Funding Share

Direct Theory

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.

How Chicago Spent Its Budget

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.

Budget Composition, 2001–2024

Police has consistently held the largest share of Chicago's budget, though its relative weight has shifted over time alongside other departments.

Stacked area chart of Chicago budget shares by department 2001–2024
Share of total city budget by department, 2001–2024. Inflation-adjusted to 2024 USD. Source: Chicago City Clerk Annual Appropriation Ordinances.

Per Capita Spending by Department, 2001–2024

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.

Per capita city spending by department, 2001–2024. Inflation-adjusted to 2024 USD. Source: Chicago City Clerk Annual Appropriation Ordinances.

What the Data Shows

Budget shares correlate with crime at first glance, but most of those correlations have a simpler explanation.

Finding 01

Most correlations are driven by a shared time trend

Crime and city budgets both changed a lot over the same 20-year period, so it's hard to tell whether budget decisions actually drove crime trends or whether they just happened at the same time.

Technical detail

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.

Chicago crime rates per 100,000 residents by category, 2001–2024
Chicago crime rates per 100,000 residents, 2001–2024. All major crime categories declined over the period, with homicide following a distinct trajectory. Source: Chicago Police Department Open Data Portal.
Finding 02

Police, human services, and library shares don't hold up

Even though police, human services, and library funding levels appear to track with crime rates, that relationship essentially disappears once you account for the fact that both were changing over time. We can't conclude that any of these caused crime to go up or down.

Technical detail

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.

Heatmap of standardized regression coefficients for budget shares and crime rates
Standardized (beta) coefficients from multivariate OLS regression of budget shares on crime rates. Reference category: Internal Operations & Infrastructure. * p < 0.05. Interpret with caution due to high multicollinearity (VIF = 9 to 16) among several predictors.
Finding 03

Two predictors survive year control

Streets & Sanitation and Chicago Public Schools state funding show some relationship with crime even after accounting for time, but the direction is counterintuitive. More funding is associated with more crime, which suggests these variables are probably picking up on deeper socioeconomic conditions rather than a direct effect.

Technical detail

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.

Finding 04

Homicides are the hardest outcome to predict

Homicides are the most reliable crime statistic since they're almost always reported, yet they show no meaningful relationship with any budget category. That's the strongest evidence in the data that budget allocation alone doesn't explain crime trends.

Technical detail

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.

How the Analysis Was Done

A multi-step pipeline from raw public data to regression models, with careful attention to common pitfalls in budget-crime analysis.

Step 01

Data Assembly

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.

Step 02

Inflation Adjustment

All dollar values were converted to constant 2024 USD using annual CPI averages, ensuring year-over-year budget comparisons are not distorted by inflation.

Step 03

Crime Classification

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.

Step 04

Normalization

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.

Step 05

Regression Modeling

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.

Step 06

Year Sensitivity 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.

Full methodology, including data cleaning decisions, interpolation approach, and regression diagnostics, is documented in the project repository.

View full methodology and code on GitHub

Where the Data Comes From

All data used in this analysis is publicly available.

Crime Data (2001–2024)

Chicago Police Department via City of Chicago Open Data Portal. Incident-level records with IUCR crime classifications.

City Budget Data

Chicago City Clerk Annual Appropriation Ordinances. Department-level allocations from 2001–2024.

CPS Budget Data

Chicago Public Schools Annual Budget Reports. State funding as a share of total CPS revenue.

Population Data

U.S. Census Bureau via tidycensus. Decennial counts, ACS 1-year estimates, and post-2020 Population Estimates Program data.

Inflation (CPI-U)

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average. Annual averages used for adjustment to 2024 USD.