Ask an Expert
WLC’s Ryan Downer: We Need Evidence-Based Solutions for a Safer D.C.
April 04, 2024
Ryan Downer moderates a Washington Lawyers’ Committee panel in February.
On March 11, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser signed into law the Secure DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2024, aimed at addressing public safety concerns amid a spike in violent crimes in the District in recent years. The legislation addresses perceived deficiencies in the earlier Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 that Congress rejected and viewed as too soft on crime.
The new law strengthens gun penalties, expands the definition of carjacking, and allows for DNA collection once an individual is charged with a violent crime and has a probable cause hearing. It also creates drug-free zones, areas where police can temporarily force out people suspected of illegal drug activity.
Civil rights organizations, including the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (WLC), have criticized the legislation for its potential for over-policing and unchecked officer power. The D.C. Bar recently spoke with Ryan Downer, legal director of WLC, about enhanced policing and sentencing, the root causes of crime, and what kinds of programs can have a more meaningful impact for a safer, more secure District.
Downer has spent more than 15 years litigating civil rights cases, with a focus on criminal legal system reform and economic justice. He previously served as director of litigation at Civil Rights Corps challenging the criminalization of poverty, including litigation relating to prosecutorial misconduct and wealth-based pretrial detention.
What misconceptions have shaped public discourse about crime?
It’s clear that there’s a problem. The violent crime rate [was] up [in 2023]. Communities are in distress about this, and so, it is something that, as civil rights advocates, we have to be responsive to. But one big misconception is that going back to a 1990s-style ramp-up in pretrial incarceration and drug-free zones is going to work to address this problem. There’s no evidence that they do, and [there’s] a good amount of evidence that they are actually counterproductive, particularly in the case of pretrial incarceration.
There are circumstances in which pretrial incarceration is justified, but to enhance the presumption in favor of that, firstly, may raise constitutional problems. Additionally, just in terms of effectiveness, it can be counterproductive to have lots of folks in jail before trial. People lose jobs, they lose housing, they can lose custody of children. It’s destabilizing to individuals and to communities. If what you are looking to do is make the District safer, destabilizing people and communities is not the way to go.
We all want to deter crime, live in a safer city, and have safer communities. This is particularly true in the communities most devastated by crime. But we need to think critically about what actually solves the problem rather than what makes us feel like we’re doing something. That’s what I want to guard against.
What shortcomings do you see in the Secure DC Act?
The primary issue we have with the crime bill is the absence of evidence-based solutions that other jurisdictions have implemented and that the District has tried in the past and then backed away from or never fully funded. There was a strategic plan aimed at crime reduction introduced in 2022 that included a program for violence interrupters … people trained to go into the communities, people who were part of the communities and had context there, to engage community members and disrupt crime before it happens. There were programs for youth that are particularly at risk of engaging in crime, and late afternoon and night youth activity programs. The current proposals have a few things that gesture in that direction, but nothing robust that would point us in the direction of getting in and having an immediate disruption of crime. That’s what’s missing.
Instead, we have things like the reintroduction of drug-free zones, allowing police to disrupt the meeting of two or more people in what has been designated as a drug-free zone. They may do so because someone is in the gang database, or because they have “reasonable belief” that something criminal might happen. There’s no requirement for them to have probable cause to stop you or to tell you to disperse. It’s not necessary for the police to have any indication an actual crime is [taking place] or is about to take place.
It's a freedom of association issue. We published a report on the District’s gang database about why it’s a flawed methodology that fails to determine who is actually in a gang or is likely to commit a crime. The extension of its use in the implementation of drug-free zones would be similarly flawed. It is already illegal to sell drugs. So, it’s not helpful to give police a tool that they already have and to do it in a way that could lead to abuses by police.
There are enhancements for pretrial incarceration in the bill … [which have] the disruptive effects on people and communities that I previously mentioned.
So, those are some of the things that cause civil rights advocates concern. It’s not to say there aren’t some good things in the bill. There are, but overall it’s problematic, and the issues it presents are serious enough that we are concerned. Meanwhile, the violence interruption and youth engagement programs here, and elsewhere, aren’t really given the funding and the air to breathe that they need to work in the long term. We need consistent support for these programs and substantial, reliable funding.
That is the kind of action that can be taken that will actually prevent crime, rather than the ones that come in on the backend, after a crime has already occurred, after folks have been injured. If there’s a youth violence problem in a particular area, the question is how to direct that energy somewhere else.
The problems that exist are long-term, systemic problems. It’s not a coincidence that the highest crime rates are in the neighborhoods that have the highest poverty rates and the worst performing schools. We need to address those issues.
What kinds of programs can make the District safer?
Antipoverty programs, generally, are most effective. WLC’s work in this area includes our housing justice practice. We traditionally focused on housing discrimination, but more recently we have expanded the focus to include housing conditions. That’s because we’ve been in conversation with tenant organizations and community organizers — and conditions are the most immediate concern. People are living in squalid, abhorrent conditions with mold; infestations of rats, mice, and roaches; leaking ceilings — just an array of problems.
So, when you talk about wanting to have safe communities, you can’t have a safe community when people aren’t safe in their own homes. What we are finding in our litigation about housing conditions is that it’s a problem throughout the city.
Schools and education are another area of focus for us. Lately, our focus has been on special education and access to education for the District’s most vulnerable students. They’re entitled to an education, and they’re not getting it. We just settled a case called Charles H involving youth in the D.C. Jail who were entitled to special education. During the pandemic, they did not receive any of the educational opportunities they were entitled to. We filed a lawsuit along with our partners that was successful in securing compensatory education to those students, as well as bringing the Maya Angelou Academy into the D.C. Jail to provide special education opportunities for present and future detainees.
[In March we helped file a case] against OSSE [Office of the State Superintendent of Education] for failing to provide transportation to children who are entitled to special education. Students entitled to special education may also be entitled to transportation to and from the school, and too many students in the District aren’t getting that transportation, which hinders their ability to get the education.
Access to jobs is another point of focus. If you have a criminal record, you can have a hard time finding a job. We have litigation working on that. Wage theft is another issue, one that especially impacts the Latino community. We’re also working in the policy space on school conditions and in police accountability. These are all areas in which we see the root causes and systemic issues that contribute to creating an environment in which violence takes place.
If you want to have safer streets, and we all do … from Ward 1 to Ward 8, our position is that you have to be invested in the communities that do not have the benefit of the security that the rest of us enjoy. That means investing in schools and affordable housing.
How can individuals and organizations help with your efforts?
A big part of WLC’s work is done in partnership with law firms doing pro bono litigation and policy work. If you are an associate or a partner at a law firm and you are interested in joining our efforts, I would encourage you to get in touch with us and we can put you to work.
For community members in the District, I would encourage them to make their voices heard before D.C. Council. I think the Councilmembers know that they need to do something. Community members are in a position to push them to do the work to put out legislation that enacts programs that are evidence-based and grounded in factual information about what can improve safety and security in the medium term and, most importantly, in the long term.
I think everybody is on the same page. We want a safer community. I know there is a problem with crime right now. The question is, what are we going to do about that? In answering that question, I don’t want us to be reactionary. I want us to be thoughtful. I want to do things that will actually make us safer.
