Playing the blame game with crime
Playing the blame game with crime
How DC puts politics ahead of accountability
Many Washingtonians are in a sour mood about the District and that sentiment got worse this week with the news that Ted Leonsis, owner of the Capitals and Wizards, plans to move the teams to a new arena in Virginia. Beyond the immediate disappointment among DC sports fans, there’s concern about how this move would harm Downtown DC and the District’s economy overall. While the move still has to go through several approval steps, a lot of Washingtonians are asking “what happened?” and looking for whom to blame. While many of the specifics of this business decision are beyond the scope of this crime blog (Virginia simply had more land and money to offer for example), the team ownership has also cited crime around Capitol One Arena as a concern:
If we zoom out from the specifics of the sports issue to the larger question of “who is responsible for crime in DC?” we generally have a dysfunctional debate centered on what Washingtonians like to argue about, not what matters most on the ground. DC’s local commentariat is uniquely political so unsurprisingly we tend to talk about crime as a political issue; rather than the nuts and bolts of actually fighting crime. This tendency has harmed DC in real ways. Instead of focusing accountability on the many real operational problems within DC’s crime-fighting “ecosystem,” the blame game has incentivized performative policymaking and rhetoric while letting serious problems go unaddressed. Savvy political operators have been able to mobilize extremely selective outrage about crime to advance their completely unrelated political objectives. Public outrage about crime is legitimate and needs to be focused on the problems that actually drive crime.
Before reviewing the various entities that make up DC’s criminal justice system it’s worth remembering that crime is caused by the people who choose to commit crimes. We often completely ignore criminals’ decision-making processes when discussing crime, but whether they think they’ll be caught and punished (or not) for a specific crime is one of the most important factors in crime rates. Criminals also change crime rates independent of any government policies through their own actions. We saw a nationwide spike in motor vehicle thefts when criminals shared how to easily steal Kias/Hyundais and other criminals responded to this information by stealing more cars (and sometimes then using those cars for other crimes). We see shootings increase or decrease in particular neighborhoods based on whether rival crews/gangs are in a feud or chose to honor a truce. We’ve seen juveniles essentially “recruit” other kids into criminal activity and help fuel this year’s rise in carjackings:
“Kids take other kids for joy rides in stolen vehicles, which they call ‘free cars,’ then graduate to teaching them how to carjack. When they got caught, nothing serious happened. So it exploded,” McGilly said. “We’ve had twice as many carjackings in 2023 as last year, and it’s just because more and more kids were being introduced to it.”
It’s imperative that government respond effectively to criminal actions like this and try to prevent these kinds of flare ups. But crime trends will always reflect criminals’ decisions in addition to government actions.
On the crime-fighting side, one of DC’s terrible disadvantages is in how fragmented our system is between different local and federal entities. Below is a vastly oversimplified (yet still quite complicated!) table outlining which entities (the column names across the top) have different responsibilities for critical crime-fighting activities. Local DC government entities are shaded green while federal entities are shaded blue. We’ll discuss each activity in detail below but the key takeaways are that 1. Responsibility is fragmented and 2. Activities are often handled or overseen by a federal government that has wildly different priorities than the District of Columbia. I’ve also noted which entities Act, Oversee or Support each activity though I’ll note that some readers might make slightly different judgement calls on some of these:
Acts: Who does the activity
Oversees: Who conducts oversight
Supports: Who helps but isn't primarily responsible
Responding to Crimes:
The primary responsibility for responding to crimes falls on District agencies that report to Mayor Muriel Bowser (“Mayoral Administration” in the table) like the our 911 center (under Office of Unified Communications Director Heather McGaffin), and the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) led by Chief Pamela Smith. These agencies are overseen by the DC Council. We also receive some assistance from federal law enforcement agencies like the Capitol Police, Park Police, Secret Service etc. who are nominally overseen by Congress. By the numbers, this is overwhelmingly a DC government responsibility and there are serious problems:
DC’s 911 center is consistently understaffed and usually fails to meet national standards for answer speeds. Dispatch quality is also a concern given critical errors that have sent emergency services to the wrong place.
MPD’s response times are only infrequently reported (they got worse in 2022 relative to 2021) and there’s no consistent data on the “quality” of MPD’s responses to crime. Residents in wards 7 and 8 tend to report lower satisfaction with MPD, which may be related to MPD assigning proportionally fewer officers to those wards (relative to their share of violent crime) and assigning disproportionately junior officers to those wards. More in this post:
Solving Crimes:
Solving crimes is primarily the responsibility of District agencies that report to the Mayor like MPD and the Crime Lab under the Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS), led by Interim Director Francisco Diaz. These agencies are overseen by the DC Council. However federal law enforcement agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and even parts of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Postal Service play a role in solving certain crimes. Those federal agencies are overseen by Congress, though (as will be a trend in this post) Congressional oversight is rarely focused on these agencies’ activities fighting local crime in DC. Prosecutors like the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) and DC Attorney General (OAG) also support (or hinder) investigations. The USAO in DC is led by U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves and DC’s elected Attorney General is Brian Schwalb. Society supports solving crimes by providing tips and cooperating as witnesses. When the public trusts police it generally contributes to higher clearance rates while lower trust often leads to fewer solved crimes.
MPD’s clearance rate (the percent of crimes “cleared” by an arrest or other means) has fallen in 2023 for most violent crimes. The clearance rate is incredibly important because higher clearance rates increase the “certainty” of getting caught and is the primary deterrent against crime (much more so than the “severity” of the punishment). There are a number of best practices from other cities that MPD could employ to solve more crimes and restore deterrence described in this post:
DC’s crime lab infamously lost its accreditation in 2021 and since then DC has relied on outside vendors and infrequent support from federal labs to process evidence. This has caused a backlog of ~770 untested DNA samples from violent crimes scenes as of Spring 2023 and a massive breakdown in drug enforcement due to lack of testing. This has made it harder for MPD to solve crimes and for prosecutors to press charges. While the crime lab is applying for re-accreditation there appears to have been a breakdown between DFS and its oversight board over accusations that DFS is withholding data.
Prosecuting Crimes:
The United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) is responsible for prosecuting the vast majority of crimes in the District of Columbia and is overseen by Congress. The DC Attorney General (OAG) prosecutes juvenile crimes as well as some lower-level adult offenses and is overseen by the DC Council. The Federal Court System “supports” prosecution in the sense that the courts have to function for prosecutions to occur, so breakdowns in the courts (like judicial vacancies and case backlogs) set back prosecution and can influence prosecutorial decisions.
The USAO declines to prosecute a much larger share of cases than almost any other major city prosecutor. In the last fiscal year, the USAO declined to prosecute 56% of the arrests they reviewed (from MPD and some federal law enforcement agencies) while the OAG declined to prosecute ~44% of cases in the first 9 months of 2023. Even when the USAO does press charges, a large share of cases are later dropped or reduced to much lesser charges via plea deals. DC’s outlier low prosecution rate is one the key differences between DC and other cities that are seeing falling violent crime in 2023. More details in this post:
Hearing Criminal Cases:
DC’s local courts are run by the Federal Court System. Most criminal matters in DC go the DC Superior Court while some cases are filed in District Court. The Chief Judge of the DC Superior Court is the Honorable Anita Josey-Herring. Many entities “support” the courts to include prosecutors, defense attorneys and society (by serving as jurors). The United States Marshals Service (USMS) is federal law enforcement agency which supports the courts by providing security, transporting prisoners and other duties. The Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC) screens and recommends judicial candidates to the President who then nominates judges to Congress for approval.
This complicated process for filling judicial vacancies has consistently left DC courts understaffed which then causes backlogs. Backlogs can deprive defendants and victims of the benefit of a speedy trial and can also influence prosecutors to offer different plea deals to simply get a case over with.
Monitoring Defendants on Release:
Most people that are accused or convicted of a crime are under some kind of “release” like pre-trial supervision or probation rather than being detained in jail or prison. The agencies supervising these people (through GPS monitors, check-ins etc.) are supposed to ensure they are not re-arrested and do show up to court dates. These agencies also support supervisees’ rehabilitation by getting them treatment for underlying mental health or substance use issues and connecting them with social services. In DC adult defendants/offenders are supervised by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), a federal agency which includes the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) and the Community Supervision Program (CSP). CSOSA is led by Director Richard Tischner. For juvenile defendants/offenders this supervisory role is covered by the Court Social Services Division (CSSD) led by Director Terri Odom. When defendants/offenders don’t comply with their release conditions (to include failing to appear in court) CSOSA or CSSD can ask the courts to issue a bench warrant to return them to court and either revoke their release or adjust their release conditions. Enforcing bench warrants in DC has traditionally been the responsibility of the United States Marshals Service (USMS), a federal law enforcement agency whose DC operations are led by U.S. Marshal Robert Dixon. CSOSA, CSSD and the USMS are nominally overseen by Congress. MPD also supports this activity and sometimes enforces bench warrants.
While most people on pretrial release or probation are compliant, there are still many infractions that contribute to crime in DC. There are over 1,000 unenforced bench warrants and a material number of these fugitives end up arrested for new crimes.
Court Social Services staff have made serious allegations against the division’s monitoring of juvenile suspects, to include that GPS monitoring isn’t 24/7 and that GPS/curfew violations are common and with little to no consequences. This coincides with at least 5 juveniles under CSSD electronic monitoring dying in the span of just 5 weeks. More in this post:
Detaining Defendants:
The primary responsibility for detaining defendants (and some sentenced offenders) is with District government agencies that report to the Mayor like the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS). The DOC is led by Director Thomas Faust and DYRS is led by Director Sam Abed. These agencies are overseen by the DC Council. The DC jail (run by DOC) generally handles adults who are being held pretrial or have been sentenced to confinement for misdemeanors. Adult offenders that are sentenced to confinement for a felony are sent to federal prisons run by the Bureau of Prisons (led by Director Colette Peters). Juvenile defendants that are held pretrial are generally detained at DYRS’ Youth Services Center (YSC) while juveniles that are found guilty and “committed” to DYRS are held at the New Beginnings (NB) facility.
There are reports of significant problems at the DC jail, to include unsafe conditions, contraband and drug use when the US Marshals visited the facility for a surprise inspection.
DC’s juvenile detention facilities have struggled with understaffing, contraband and rising numbers of injuries to staff and detainees. The Mayor attempted to shut down these facilities’ independent oversight board but the Council passed legislation to at least temporarily keep the board in place. More on the problems in DC’s juvenile detention system here:
Rehabilitating Offenders:
The important work of trying to rehabilitate offenders (and therefore reduce crime in the future) is heavily fragmented. Federal agencies include the Bureau of Prisons (which runs programming for incarcerated DC felons), CSOSA (which oversees adults on probation, parole and supervised release) and Court Social Services (which oversees juveniles on probation). These federal agencies are supported by the Federal Court System and nominally overseen by Congress. There are also DC government entities that report to the Mayor that attempt to rehabilitate offenders. These include the Mayor’s Office on Returning Citizen Affairs (MORCA), which is led by Director Lamont Carey and the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (ONSE) led by Interim Director Kwelli Sneed. The DOC and DYRS also try to provide rehabilitative programming for their detainees. These local agencies are overseen by the DC Council. Society also has a support role in rehabilitation with many individuals and groups doing good work to help offenders reintegrate.
While many people commit a crime and then stay out of trouble, there are repeat offenders that drive a significant portion of DC’s crime. MPD estimated that the average homicide suspect had been arrested 11 times prior to committing murder. This reflects both breakdowns in prosecution (declined, dropped or pled-down cases) mentioned above as well as a failure to rehabilitate offenders during their sentence for any prior convictions.
Crime Prevention:
Pretty much any aspect of a healthy community can contribute to crime prevention. This is where Society has the largest direct role with everything from parenting to economic development having some impact on crime. Dozens of DC government agencies that report to the Mayor contribute to crime prevention with some of the most important being DC’s schools and agencies that administer DC’s safety net programs. The DC Attorney General also runs a crime prevention program called Cure The Streets. Like other DC agencies they are overseen by the DC Council.
Chronic absenteeism is incredibly high in DC schools, the highest of any “state” and 20% higher than in Mississippi. This is both a risk factor for crime and a warning of other problems going on in children’s lives that tend to correlate with crime.
Many of DC’s safety net programs are also struggling to help people in a timely manner and/or have faced significant budget cuts. More on this and truancy in this post:
Legal Changes:
In DC laws are passed by the DC Council and interpreted by the Federal Court System. Because DC is not a state, Congress can overturn laws passed by DC (most famously this year by repealing DC’s criminal code revision). The Mayor can (and does) propose legislation and can attempt to veto legislation. In DC, there are also laws that pass “subject to appropriation” which do not go into effect until they are funded. DC is required to have a balanced budget and the budget originates from the Mayor’s proposal and then the DC Council edits it. Many members of Society participate in legal changes through advocacy and voting. Both the USAO and the DC Attorney General often lobby for and advise on the Constitutionality of proposed legislation.
One of the most common narratives in DC is that legal changes by the DC Council have tied the hands of law enforcement, reduced consequences for criminals and are therefore responsible for crime in DC. Critics often cite the Neighborhood Engagement Achieves Results (NEAR) Act, the Youth Rehabilitation Act (YRS), the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (IRAA) and the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act among other bills.
The USAO has argued quite forcefully that rulings by the DC Court of Appeals have significantly changed how police can make arrests for illegal firearms possession. This is cited by the USAO as a reason for their high declination rate for firearms cases (alongside limited ability to test DNA due to the crime lab’s lack of accreditation).
The USAO has tried to demonize the Youth Rehabilitation Act (YRA) for allowing shorter sentences for crimes like carjacking. However actual DC sentencing data shows that Armed Carjacking cases are far more likely to be declined, dismissed or pled-down to lesser charges by the USAO.
Having gone through all of the key crime-fighting activities outlined in the table, it’s worth asking why so much of DC’s crime debate has been focused on the “Legal Changes” row (and more so the Council’s role than the Courts) at the expense of desperately-needed attention on the local and federal agencies that have serious operational issues:
One reason that I am so skeptical of the “Legal Changes are to blame” narrative is that there are other cities and states that enacted similar policies who have low crime rates that we can only aspire to (New York City and Boston being leading examples). There’s nothing unique about DC’s efforts to shorten sentences, reform policing practices or even our struggles with a shrinking police force. But those issues aren’t stopping other cities from bringing down violent crime and homicides this year. What is unique about DC is the combination of a hyper-fragmented criminal justice system and multiple key agencies (especially the USAO, DFS and OUC) performing so poorly that they create bottlenecks for the entire criminal justice system.
Another problem with the “Legal Changes are to blame” theory is that crime was lower in 2020, 2021 and 2022 after a lot of these changes happened. 2023 has been terrible but it’s hard to explain why laws passed in roughly 2016-2020 would have no effect until 2023. On the other hand, the USAO’s prosecution rate hit a record low of 33% in Fiscal Year 2022 and a lot of operational metrics (bench warrant enforcement, truancy etc) also got much worse prior to crime spiking in 2023. One quirk I noticed when looking at the time trend is that most incumbents can still claim that crime is lower during their tenure:
Reported crimes across DC have been lower under Mayor Bowser than in the years of data we have prior to her administration. Note I used data for January-November for all years since we don’t have complete December data.
It’s also true that for most Councilmembers reported crime is down in their wards relative to the years before they were sworn in. The exceptions here being the class of 2023 new Councilmembers.
For people focused on driving down crime in DC, the holistic view of DC’s fragmented system is the only way to hold the right people accountable and drive change where it is most needed. But for much of DC’s political class, crime is just the current thing that can help win elections. This can be pretty obvious when selective outrage about crime is only mobilized against certain people for particular political ends:
When the Council passed a 2.5% cut to MPD’s budget for Fiscal Year 2021 it was blasted as “defunding” MPD and people continue to attribute changes in crime trends to this cut. When the Mayor proposed and passed a 3.8% cut to MPD’s budget for Fiscal Year 2024 there was almost no mention of it.
Also note that the “Approved” budget of $545M for FY 2021 became an “Actual” budget of $575M.
In the 2022 At-Large Independent Councilmember race, CM McDuffie opposed hiring more police (per the Washington Post questionnaire), had voted to remove MPD’s School Resource Officers (SROs) and had supported all of the criminal justice legislation (including authoring the NEAR Act) that many people blame for rising crime. Yet because he was the explicitly pro-business candidate and was running against a “progressive” incumbent (who supported hiring more police) he faced functionally no “soft on crime” attacks in the election. The Washington Post’s endorsement instead cited “his focus on small businesses as a way to grow the local economy” with no mention of his policies on crime. This was the same Editorial Board that blasted Councilmembers Robert White and Trayon White as “they are on the wrong side of the critical issues of public safety and schools. Both voted to cut police funding” for casting the same budget vote as CM McDuffie.
The Post gave the game away when they said “lower taxes, better support for the police and continuing mayoral control of schools. These are the right positions” while simultaneously endorsing Republican David Krucoff’s bid in Ward 3. For the Post and many people in DC’s business community, talking about crime is just a way to win elections to keep taxes low. This is why Mayor Bowser was able to cut MPD’s budget without any political blowback because she did it while ensuring that DC balanced its budget with cuts rather than tax increases. The selective outrage about crime is always targeted at specific political enemies of the Mayor and her broader coalition.
For years now this dysfunctional dynamic has confined DC’s crime debate to only a small sliver of DC’s crime problems. The obsessive focus on blaming crime on legal changes by the Council has successfully deflected attention away from the glaring problems across many local and federal agencies. Playing the blame game has been a huge political win for the Mayor, her agency heads and federal leaders like USA Graves. But as a policy matter it’s been a disaster for DC. Hopefully this week’s bad news can help shock the system into thoroughly cleaning up DC’s fragmented criminal justice system.
Just calling out that Charles Allen recommended this post in his constituent newsletter. You are getting attention from key decision makers. Keep up the great work!
A very good summary of the year. Because this is so high-quality, let me make a couple of quibbles: You say "Chronic absenteeism is incredibly high in DC schools, the highest of any 'state' and 20% higher than in Mississippi." Nobody should compare DC to states, it's an apples-and-oranges comparison, and this data is such garbage (e.g. not distinguishing between real illness and just staying home) that it's close to worthless. Also, our city's young (16-25ish) offenders mostly do not make rational decisions, like whether they're going to be caught or how severely they will be punished; the data will never tell you why offenders are doing what they're doing. That requires old-school social science which nobody seems to do anymore.