The Prioritizing Public Safety Emergency Amendment Act of 2023 (D.C. Act 25-175)
and the CJCC Data Collection Technical Correction Emergency Amendment Act of 2023 (D.C. Act 25-295) require the CJCC
to post (1) monthly data on violent crime incidents and arrests and (2) quarterly data on the following with respect
to the District’s criminal and juvenile justice systems: diversion, pretrial supervision, detention, prosecution,
sentencing, commitment, incarceration, probation, parole, supervised release, deferred prosecution agreements,
deferred sentencing agreements, deferred disposition agreements, and consent decrees.
This page contains links to various dashboards that include the data and analyses CJCC is required to publicly report. Links that are inactive and show “Pending” indicate that CJCC is in the process of collecting and analyzing the relevant data to generate the dashboard, and that the dashboard will be published at a later date.
The CJCC hopes that the dashboards will provide helpful insight into the Who, What, When and Where with respect to violent crime and particular criminal and juvenile justice system functions. However, the dashboards are limited in that they do not provide insight into the How and Why. Addressing those questions requires a systematic investigation using extensive quantitative and/or qualitative analysis, which tends to be time-intensive and does not lend itself to regularized monthly and quarterly reporting.
Persons reviewing the data will also notice similar metrics provided across the dashboards, including the number of “successful” completions and rearrest rates for particular programs and interventions. Even though similar metrics are provided, we caution readers not to use those metrics to compare the effectiveness of one program or intervention to another. Such a comparison would require the use of rigorous experimental research designs, such as randomized controlled trials, in which individuals are randomly assigned to an experimental (intervention) group or a control group. This type of research can be particularly challenging in the criminal justice context as it presents ethical concerns, especially if one intervention requires deeper involvement in the justice system versus another. Quasi-experimental designs that do not require random assignment—such as a comparison of similarly situated groups (i.e., groups that are created based on similar characteristics like race, age, gender, offense types, etc. using statistical methods)—pose fewer ethical concerns, but they are also longer-term research projects.
The content of these dashboards comes from data that originated from criminal justice agencies’ case management systems. Data are entered into these systems manually and may be subject to error. Also, some of these systems may be limited in that they are not able to query certain data in an automated fashion; but rather, data extractions are conducted manually, which also increases the risk of human error.
Further, criminal justice agencies that are subject to the federal Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) did not provide record-level, identifiable data to the CJCC to enable the CJCC to conduct an independent analysis of the data, with the exception of data that is otherwise publicly available. Rather, those agencies provided aggregate data, which CJCC then visualized.
Each agency featured in these dashboards has had the opportunity to review and comment on the presented information. CJCC incorporated proposed edits from the agencies as deemed appropriate.
Click any link below to view the corresponding dashboards.