HB4922, titled the “D.C. Criminal Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safe Act of 2025” or the “DC CRIMES Act of 2025,” would significantly change juvenile justice policy in the District of Columbia. The bill lowers the age for youth offender status from 24 years old or younger to under 18, which would remove 18- to 24-year-olds from the District’s youth rehabilitation framework and related sentencing considerations. It also makes conforming changes to probation and community service provisions tied to youth offender treatment.
The bill further requires the D.C. Attorney General to create and maintain a publicly accessible website with monthly updated, machine-readable statistics on juvenile crime. The site must include arrest, prosecution, sentencing, recidivism-related, and declination data broken down by age, race, sex, offense type, and other categories, while excluding personally identifiable information. The bill also compels juvenile case, social, and law-enforcement records to be shared with the Attorney General for this reporting purpose and requires indefinite archival access to historical data.
In addition, the bill amends the D.C. Home Rule Act to prohibit the D.C. Council from enacting changes to existing criminal liability sentences, limiting local authority over criminal sentencing policy. The measure would therefore affect both juvenile justice administration and the District’s legislative autonomy over criminal penalties.
The House passed the bill on September 16, 2025, by a vote of 239-178, indicating substantial but not unanimous support. The recorded vote suggests the bill was politically divisive, with a clear majority in favor but a sizable minority opposed. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record reflects floor action rather than detailed committee debate.
The main points of contention are likely the reduction of youth offender protections for young adults ages 18 to 24, the expanded public reporting of juvenile crime statistics, and the restriction on D.C. self-governance in sentencing matters. Supporters appear to frame the bill as a public safety and transparency measure, while opponents would likely view it as narrowing rehabilitation options, increasing stigmatization through public data reporting, and curbing District home rule.
The bill would amend the D.C. Youth Rehabilitation Act to redefine youth offender status as applying only to individuals under 18, eliminating special treatment for 18- to 24-year-olds and adjusting related probation and sentencing provisions. It would also create a new statutory reporting regime in the D.C. Code requiring the Attorney General to publish and archive juvenile crime statistics and to receive juvenile records for that purpose. Separately, it would amend the D.C. Home Rule Act to bar the D.C. Council from changing existing criminal liability sentences, thereby constraining local legislative authority over criminal sentencing policy in the District.
The bill’s House passage by 239-178 indicates generally favorable sentiment among supporters but meaningful opposition. The title and structure suggest the bill is framed by proponents as a public safety and accountability measure, emphasizing juvenile crime transparency and tougher treatment of older youth offenders. At the same time, the sizable no vote shows that many lawmakers were unconvinced by the approach or objected to its implications for rehabilitation, privacy, and D.C. autonomy.
The most notable contention centers on whether 18- to 24-year-olds should remain eligible for youth offender status; supporters of the bill favor limiting that category to minors, while opponents are likely to argue that young adults still benefit from rehabilitative sentencing. A second major issue is the required publication of juvenile crime data, which supporters may see as transparency and accountability but critics may view as potentially stigmatizing and privacy-sensitive even with personally identifiable information excluded. A third point of dispute is the Home Rule Act amendment, because it would restrict the D.C. Council’s ability to revise criminal sentences, raising concerns about federal intrusion into local governance.