What ‘defunding the police’ means in practice
Defunding the police refers to reallocating some police funding to other public services such as mental health response, housing, education, and community programs, with the aim of reducing certain police activities and shifting public safety responsibilities away from law enforcement. It is not the same as abolishing police departments; rather, it asks governments to revise budgets, policies, and service models so that non-police responders can handle many situations now handled by officers. This explainer describes how the term is defined, where reductions have occurred, what has changed in police budgets, and the main alternatives and outcomes observed.
Origins and policy goals of defunding the police
The modern conversation about defunding the police gained momentum after 2020, when multiple high-profile use-of-force incidents prompted broader scrutiny of policing. Advocates argue that many emergency calls—especially those involving mental health crises, homelessness, and substance use—could be handled more effectively and safely by specialized responders such as mobile crisis teams, social workers, and public health staff. By shifting responsibilities and funding away from traditional patrol and enforcement, proponents say communities can reduce unnecessary police contact, lower the risk of harm, and invest in upstream solutions that address root causes of harm. Critics, however, emphasize the importance of police capacity for violent crime response and warn that rapid or deep cuts could reduce the ability to prevent and investigate serious offenses.
Definitions and common misconceptions
A common misconception is that defunding means immediately eliminating police departments or removing all funding for officer salaries. In practice, defunding more often refers to modest reallocation of portions of police budgets toward community-based services, oversight reforms, training, and non-police crisis response units. It can also include policy changes that limit certain police tactics, redirect funds to social services, or require new accountability measures. Because the term can describe a wide range of approaches, specific plans and outcomes vary widely by city and state. Public discussion often reflects differing views on the appropriate size and role of police, the causes of crime, and the best strategies to keep communities safe.
Where and how defunding has been attempted
Following widespread protests in 2020, several U.S. cities debated or passed measures to reduce police budgets or reallocate funds. Some examples include shifting money from the police department to community violence intervention programs, creating civilian-led behavioral health response teams, expanding mental health mobile crisis services, and funding violence interruption and outreach initiatives. The scale and permanence of these changes have varied, and many proposals have faced resistance or have been diluted during budget negotiations. Federal funding legislation has also supported community violence intervention and alternatives to policing for certain situations, while some states have provided grants for co-responder models that pair clinicians with officers or place clinicians as primary responders to behavioral health calls.
Reported budget changes in selected jurisdictions
| Jurisdiction | Defunding-related change | Year | Source Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minneapolis, MN | City council pledged to disband the police department and rebuild a public safety model; later revisited and modified amid ballot measures and sustained violent crime concerns. | 2020 | City council vote and subsequent ballot measures |
| New York City | Proposed cuts to NYPD funding followed by revisions; simultaneous increases for youth and community programs, violence interruption, and social service co-responders. | 2020–2023 | City budget documents and official reports |
| Los Angeles, CA | Pledged reductions to police budget growth and reallocation toward homelessness services, youth jobs, and violence prevention. | 2020–2022 | City council actions and budget materials |
| Seattle, WA | Cutting a portion of the Seattle Police Department budget and investing in community-led safety and mental health response programs. | 2020 | City council action and later adjustments |
| Austin, TX | Reduced police budget and created alternatives for 911 calls involving mental health, homelessness, and substance use through mobile crisis services. | 2021–2023 | City budget documents and program evaluations |
Policy tools and approaches used alongside defunding efforts
Cities that have pursued defunding-style changes have typically combined budget reallocation with other structural reforms. Common tools include co-responder models that pair clinicians with police for behavioral health calls, civilian units for traffic enforcement or administrative tasks, independent oversight bodies, early intervention systems to identify officer misconduct, and investments in violence interruption and community outreach. Some jurisdictions have experimented with alternatives to 911 for nonviolent behavioral health crises, diverting calls to specialized responders. These approaches are often evaluated for effects on response times, use of force, crime reporting, victimization, and community trust, though findings vary by location and implementation quality.
Outcomes and ongoing debates
Research on defunding and reallocation is still evolving. Some evaluations suggest that targeted investments in community programs, violence interruption, and mobile crisis response can improve access to care and reduce some forms of community harm, while others find mixed or limited impacts on crime trends. There has been notable controversy over whether reductions in police staffing or proactive enforcement correlate with changes in violent crime, with many analysts noting that crime is influenced by economic conditions, housing, drug markets, community trauma, and many other factors beyond police numbers. As a result, debates about defunding often center on trade-offs between public safety, civil liberties, accountability, and the most effective ways to allocate limited public resources. At the time of writing, large-scale empirical consensus is limited, and outcomes depend heavily on design, funding levels, coordination across agencies, and community engagement.
Alternatives and complementary reforms
In addition to reallocating funds, cities have pursued a range of alternatives to traditional policing. These include:
- Co-responder and mobile crisis teams that pair mental health professionals with or instead of police
- Community violence intervention and outreach programs staffed by local residents
- Civilian units for non-enforcement roles such as traffic control or administrative support
- Expanded social services, including housing assistance, substance use treatment, and youth programs
- Stronger use-of-force policies, de-escalation training, and data-driven oversight
These alternatives aim to address public safety needs without relying solely on police, while providing services that can reduce the underlying risks that sometimes lead to police involvement. Implementing and sustaining them requires cross-agency coordination, stable funding, and ongoing evaluation to ensure that services reach the people who need them most.
Key takeaways
Defunding the police centers on reallocating portions of police budgets and responsibilities toward community-based public safety and support services rather than eliminating policing outright. The approach has been debated widely, with some jurisdictions modestly reducing police budget growth or shifting funds to behavioral health, violence prevention, and oversight, while others have continued to prioritize traditional policing. Research into outcomes is ongoing, and the debate remains divided over the effects on crime, accountability, and public safety. Because policies vary widely and evidence is still accumulating, many details about long-term impacts remain unsettled. What is clear is that defunding is best understood as one approach among many in public safety reform, with trade-offs that depend on local context, resources, and the specific mix of alternatives implemented.