Black-centered. AI-powered. Evidence-driven.

Research. Rigor. Repair.

Anacostia Policy and Data Institute produces independent, empirically grounded, and rigorously cite-checked research so Black communities in Washington, D.C. have the data and analysis they need to demand material justice.

Read the featured report → Learn more about our mission

Truth, cited. Built with AI · Grounded in D.C. lived experience

Mission & Work

What We Do

We advance racial equity and material justice for Black communities in Washington, D.C. through independent, empirically grounded, and meticulously cite-checked research that is accountable to residents—not to foundations.

Our Mission

Our mission is to produce policy analyses, legal reviews, and data-driven reports that center the lived experiences and material conditions of Black residents in Washington, D.C. Using artificial intelligence to remove traditional barriers to research production, we treat high-quality analysis as a public resource—not a private asset.

Every publication undergoes a rigorous verification and cite-check process, ensuring that our work meets or exceeds traditional think-tank standards while remaining accessible to the communities most affected.

How We Work

We combine AI-enabled analysis with close reading of court filings, agency records, budgets, zoning decisions, and public data. Our work is grounded in D.C. reality, not abstractions.

Empirical investigations of housing, land use, displacement, education, policing, and public spending.
Legal analysis that tracks how laws and lawsuits operate on the ground for Black plaintiffs.
Plain-language briefings and visual breakdowns that make complex systems legible to residents.
AI-assisted drafting with human-led editing and rigorous cite-checking for every publication.

Featured Report

Movement Lawyering in D.C., 2023–2025

An empirical analysis of who is centered—and who is erased—in the cases filed by self-described “movement lawyering” organizations in the nation’s capital.

Key Questions

This report asks a simple but rarely examined question: when organizations litigate in the name of racial justice, who actually appears as a plaintiff? By reviewing a set of high-profile cases filed between 2023 and 2025, we identify patterns in:

Whether Black plaintiffs are named or substituted out for organizational plaintiffs.
Whether cases seek damages and material relief or injunction-only outcomes.
How race is framed: explicitly, through Black harm, or indirectly, through race-neutral “equity” language.

Why It Matters

The findings show a consistent misalignment between movement rhetoric and material outcomes. Organizational standing and funder-friendly injunctions frequently displace Black plaintiffs and Black injury, creating symbolic wins that leave underlying conditions intact.

This report is designed as both a mirror and a tool: a mirror for institutions to see the gap between their stated commitments and their actual filings, and a tool for communities, lawyers, and policymakers who want to realign movement practice with Black material justice.

Download full report (PDF) Read executive summary

Context

Why We Exist

D.C. is full of think tanks and advocacy organizations, yet Black residents rarely receive research that is built for them. We exist to correct that imbalance and to return expertise to the communities who live the stakes every day.

The Problem

Much of D.C.’s policy and legal research infrastructure is oriented toward foundations, national media, and federal decision-makers—not the neighborhoods where policy hits hardest. Data is often produced about Black communities without being made accessible to them.

Displacement without receipts. Development reshapes Black neighborhoods faster than most residents can access the records that justify it.

Litigation without plaintiffs. Cases filed “for” Black communities often proceed without Black plaintiffs or damages.

Equity without repair. Agencies and institutions speak the language of “equity” while leaving past harms unaddressed.

Our Answer

We create research products that Black residents, organizers, and community lawyers can actually use. Our work is designed to provide receipts—sourced, verifiable, and organized—to support demands for accountability, funding, repair, and structural change.

We do not chase philanthropy’s priorities or election cycles. We follow the harms, institutions, and decisions that shape Black life in the District and build a public record that cannot be easily ignored.

Method & Principles

How We Work

Our method blends AI-assisted analysis with human judgment, historical grounding, and rigorous cite-checking. The goal is simple: clear, accurate, and usable evidence.

Black-Centered

We start with Black lived experience, not abstract policy categories. Research questions are anchored in the realities of Black Washingtonians.

Empirical Rigor

We rely on court filings, agency records, budgets, zoning maps, and demographic data—not vibes, press releases, or talking points.

Transparent Sourcing

Every report is fully cite-checked. We show our sources, methods, and limitations so others can verify, challenge, and build on the work.

AI-Assisted, Human-Led

We use AI to process information faster, but humans define the questions, interpret the results, and enforce standards of accuracy and ethics.

Community Accountability

Our work is answerable to residents and grassroots actors, not donors. We measure success by usefulness on the ground, not by funder metrics.

Material Outcomes

We prioritize research that can support tangible improvements in housing, income, safety, education, and power for Black communities.

Latest Analysis

Recent & Upcoming Work

A sample of the kinds of investigations and briefings we produce. Replace or update these as new work is published.

The Racial Geography of D.C. Zoning Decisions (2025 Update)

Zoning · Displacement · Public Data

A map-based breakdown of who benefits from zoning changes and who absorbs the costs, highlighting the concentration of burdens in historically Black neighborhoods.

“Equity” vs. Reality: How D.C. Agencies Measure Themselves Out of Accountability

Public Agencies · Metrics · Accountability

An examination of how self-defined equity metrics obscure actual racial disparities in housing, education, and contracting outcomes.

D.C. Housing Trust Fund: Following the Money

Budgets · Housing · Oversight

An investigation into where Trust Fund dollars actually go, and how often those investments benefit Black residents at risk of displacement.

Stay informed. Stay equipped.

Get new reports, briefings, and data drops as soon as they are released. No spam, no fundraising scripts—just research you can use.

We will only contact you when we have substantial new work or opportunities to collaborate.