How Expanding Social Welfare Programs Can Strengthen Public Safety and Reduce Crime

A growing body of research is challenging one of the most persistent assumptions in crime policy: the idea that social welfare programs have little to do with public safety. A recent scholarly review by Robert Apel, a professor of criminology at Rutgers University–Newark School of Criminal Justice, brings together findings from dozens of studies and arrives at a clear conclusion. Public welfare policy does not just reduce poverty—it can also reduce crime and recidivism in measurable ways.

The review, published in the Annual Review of Criminology in 2025, evaluates research conducted over roughly the past decade. Importantly, many of the studies Apel analyzes come from outside traditional criminology, drawing instead from economics, public policy, public health, and sociology. This interdisciplinary approach allows for a broader and more rigorous understanding of how social safety net programs influence crime patterns across different populations and time periods.

What the Social Safety Net Actually Includes

When people hear the term “social safety net,” they often think narrowly of cash welfare. In reality, the safety net is much broader, and Apel’s review is careful to define it clearly.

The social safety net includes means-tested public assistance, such as cash welfare, food assistance, disability assistance, and public health insurance. These programs are designed to support individuals and families with limited income or resources. The safety net also includes contributory social insurance programs, most notably unemployment insurance, which workers pay into and later draw from during periods of job loss.

Apel’s review focuses on studies that examine what happens when the scope, generosity, or accessibility of these programs changes. These changes can take many forms, including benefit expansions, eligibility adjustments, increased funding, or improved access at the local or state level.

A Decade of Evidence Pointing in the Same Direction

One of the strongest takeaways from the review is the consistency of findings across different contexts and study designs. According to the research Apel examines, there is little doubt that social safety net programs can reduce both crime and recidivism.

These effects are not limited to one type of crime. Studies reviewed in the article show reductions in both violent crime and property crime, which is notable because these categories often respond differently to policy interventions. Some effects appear immediately, while others unfold over longer time horizons, suggesting that both short-term stability and long-term opportunity matter.

Even in the United States, which scholars have long described as having a comparatively underdeveloped welfare state, the evidence is compelling. Localities that take advantage of opportunities to expand or strengthen safety net programs frequently experience what Apel describes as a crime prevention dividend. In some cases, these benefits are substantial, rivaling or exceeding the effects of more traditional crime-control strategies.

Rethinking Crime Policy Assumptions

For decades, a common refrain in crime policy debates has been that addressing “root causes” like poverty and inequality is ineffective or too indirect to meaningfully prevent crime. Instead, critics argue that public money should focus on proximate causes—policing, incarceration, and other tools of the criminal justice system.

The evidence reviewed by Apel directly challenges this view. Rather than being ineffective, social welfare programs often produce spillover effects that benefit public safety, even when crime reduction is not their primary goal. In other words, these programs are not designed as crime-control tools, but they still help reduce criminal behavior by improving economic stability, reducing stress, and expanding access to basic needs.

This perspective reframes the relationship between public welfare and public safety. Instead of seeing them as competing priorities, the research suggests they are deeply interconnected.

Why Welfare Policies Can Influence Crime

While Apel’s article focuses on reviewing empirical evidence rather than advancing a single theory, the findings align with several well-established mechanisms.

First, income support and food assistance reduce economic strain, which is a known risk factor for criminal behavior. When people are less desperate to meet basic needs, they are less likely to engage in property crime or illicit work.

Second, programs like public health insurance and disability assistance improve physical and mental health outcomes. Better health is associated with improved self-regulation, decision-making, and social stability, all of which reduce the likelihood of criminal involvement.

Third, unemployment insurance plays a crucial role during periods of job loss. By smoothing income shocks, it helps people stay housed, maintain routines, and continue job searches without turning to illegal alternatives.

Finally, many safety net programs indirectly support family stability and community cohesion, which are protective factors against both crime and reoffending.

Impacts on Recidivism and Reentry

One especially important aspect of the research concerns recidivism, or the likelihood that someone who has already been involved in the criminal justice system will reoffend. Several studies reviewed by Apel show that access to social assistance during reentry can significantly reduce repeat offending.

Formerly incarcerated individuals often face severe barriers to employment, housing, and healthcare. Safety net programs can help bridge these gaps, making it easier for people to reintegrate into society. The research suggests that when these supports are present, the risk of returning to crime declines.

This finding has major implications for policy, particularly given the high costs—both financial and human—associated with reincarceration.

Broader Context: Welfare Policy Beyond Crime

Beyond crime reduction, social safety net programs are widely known to improve outcomes in education, health, and labor market participation. Decades of research show that children who grow up with access to food assistance and healthcare tend to perform better academically and experience better long-term health.

Apel’s review adds another dimension to this body of knowledge by showing that these benefits extend outward into the realm of public safety. This strengthens the case for viewing welfare spending not as a narrow social policy expense, but as a multi-purpose investment with wide-ranging returns.

It also helps explain why crime trends sometimes improve following policy changes that are not explicitly aimed at crime control. When economic and social conditions improve, crime often declines as a secondary effect.

Policy Implications Moving Forward

The findings summarized in this review suggest that policymakers should think more holistically about crime prevention. Investments in social safety net programs can complement traditional criminal justice strategies rather than replace them.

Importantly, the evidence shows that benefits can arise from local-level actions, even within a national system that is relatively limited compared to other developed countries. This means states and municipalities have meaningful opportunities to influence public safety outcomes through welfare policy choices.

As debates continue over how to allocate public funds, Apel’s review provides a strong evidence-based argument that social welfare spending delivers real, measurable public safety benefits.

Research Reference
Robert Apel, Can Social Safety Net Spending Prevent Crime?, Annual Review of Criminology (2025).
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032924-114453