Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does the Washington D.C. police department track and report crime statistics by race?
Executive Summary
The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) of Washington, D.C. collects and publishes arrest and stop data that include the race of subjects, and those public datasets and reports show persistent racial disparities—notably that a large majority of arrests and stops involve Black residents—while MPD and outside analysts urge caution in interpreting those raw proportions because socioeconomic and non-resident factors also influence the figures [1] [2] [3]. Multiple reviews and advocacy reports, and MPD’s own public pages and special responses, document how MPD records race in its central databases and releases that information through annual, semi‑annual, and ad hoc reports, though investigators have flagged gaps where race is sometimes recorded as “unknown,” which affects accuracy [1] [4] [5].
1. How MPD records race — behind the data and the database that drives it
MPD’s internal Police Records and Crime Analysis Division inputs coded incident and arrest information into a centralized database that includes a field for the subject’s race; those entries feed MPD’s monthly, five‑year, and ten‑year reports as well as downloadable datasets on MPD’s transparency pages. The operational process is explicit: race is recorded at the point of contact and compiled for both internal analysis and public release, enabling trend analysis and cross‑tabulations by offense, district, and time period [1] [2]. MPD also aggregates arrests made by other agencies into city totals, noting that a nontrivial share of arrests (about 13%) come from outside agencies, and that many arrestees live outside the district or city, which complicates simple race‑to‑population comparisons [1] [3].
2. What the numbers show — persistent disparities and contested explanations
Publicly released MPD datasets and independent reviews repeatedly show Black residents are disproportionately represented in stops and arrests relative to their share of the city’s adult population; cited figures include Black people comprising roughly 46–47% of adults while accounting for a substantially larger share of arrests and stops in many reports, including years where studies found 8 out of 10 arrestees were Black [3] [2]. At the same time, MPD and some analysts caution that raw arrest percentages are not direct measures of criminality and that poverty, concentrated disadvantage, mobility of non‑resident arrestees, and crime‑type concentration (e.g., robbery) all mediate the relationship between race and arrest counts [3] [6].
3. The legal and legislative overlay — NEAR Act and semi‑annual stop reporting
D.C.’s Neighborhood Engagement Achieves Results (NEAR) Act created statutory data collection requirements for police stops and encounters, and MPD has been releasing NEAR Act datasets semi‑annually. That law institutionalized stop data recording and made transparent what had been inconsistent reporting, enabling advocates and researchers to document stop‑level race breakdowns and evaluate patterns over time; ACLU‑DC and other reviews using NEAR data have highlighted enduring racial disparities in stops [4] [7]. The NEAR Act does not fully resolve interpretive disputes—data availability improves oversight, but interpretation still depends on complementary socioeconomic, geographic, and enforcement‑practice analysis [4] [2].
4. Data quality concerns — unknown race entries and their effects on conclusions
Independent investigations and reporting have raised red flags about data completeness: some audits and news inquiries found rising counts of encounters where race was recorded as “unknown,” particularly in use‑of‑force and stop reporting. Systematic increases in “unknown” race entries can bias any analysis of racial disparities by obscuring true distributions and inflating or deflating subgroup shares, and MPD’s public explanations acknowledge that coding practices and multi‑agency reporting introduce classification inconsistencies [5] [1]. These shortcomings mean policy debates based on MPD’s race‑coded data must account for possible misclassification, missingness, and the role of other agencies’ inputs [5] [1].
5. Academic and advocacy critiques — what disaggregated research adds to the picture
Scholarly work and advocacy studies disaggregate crime types and geographic units to test whether a simple “percent Black” variable explains violent crime or arrest patterns; findings indicate the connection often weakens when researchers control for concentrated disadvantage and when analyses focus on specific crimes, with some studies showing the racial correlation largely tied to robbery and other concentrated offenses rather than a universal pattern [6]. Advocacy reports using MPD stop data conclude that disparities persist even after accounting for policing changes, prompting calls for policy reforms and closer oversight, yet those calls are contested by observers who emphasize socioeconomic drivers and the complicating role of non‑resident arrestees [7] [6] [3].
6. What to watch next — transparency, methodological fixes, and policy relevance
Improving reliability will require MPD and oversight bodies to reduce “unknown” race entries, harmonize multi‑agency inputs, and accompany race counts with contextual variables—residence, offense type, neighborhood indicators, and socioeconomic measures—so policymakers can distinguish enforcement bias from structural drivers. The current public record shows MPD tracks and reports race systematically, that disparities are measurable and persistent, and that data quality and interpretation remain central battlegrounds for reformers and defenders alike [1] [5] [4].