Catch and release: Testing the effect of a citation release policy on crime in Washington, DC

• Published date: 01 May 2024
• Author: Jordan R. Riddell,Bruce A. Jacobs,Andrew T. Krajewski
• Date: 01 May 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12659

DOI: ./- .

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Catch and release: Testing the effect of a citation

release policy on crime in Washington, DC

Jordan R. Riddell1Bruce A. Jacobs2Andrew T. Krajewski2

School of Criminology and Criminal

Justice, Missouri State University,

Springfield, Missouri, USA

Criminology and Criminal Justice

Program, School of Economic, Political

and Policy Sciences, The University of

Texasat Dallas, Richardson, Texas, USA

Correspondence

Jordan R. Riddell, School of Criminology

and Criminal Justice, Missouri State

University,  S. National Ave,

Springfield, MO, , USA.

Email: jordanriddell@missouristate.edu

Abstract

Research summary: This study investigated the effect

of an expanded police station citation release policy

enacted in Washington, DC in March  on eight

types of crime: homicide, sex abuse, robbery, assault

with a dangerous weapon, burglary,motor vehicle theft,

theft from motor vehicles, and other theft. Monthly-

level multivariate time series analyses employed data

from - and accounted for the relationship

between crime, arrests, and the jail population. The

expanded policy was hypothesized to increase certain

property crimes based on the new guidelines, but results

indicated the policy modification was associated with

changes in citywide crime counts for one type of crime:

homicide.

Policy implications: Efforts around the United States

to decarcerate the pre-trial jail population should exam-

ine potential unintended consequences for public safety.

The current study failed to detect a statistically signifi-

cant increase in seven of the eight types of crime during

the expanded use of one jail decarceration approach,

police station citation release. In the future, jurisdictions

looking to reduce their jail population might consider

citation release as a speedy and cost-effective alternative

to release-on-recognizance, but they should take care to

monitor individual defendants and evaluate their own

program.

Criminology & Public Policy. ;:–. ©  American Society of Criminology. 491wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp

492 RIDDELL  .

KEYWORDS

citation release, crime, decarceration, time series

In March , the Washington,DC, Superior Court expanded the DC Metropolitan Police Depart-

ment’s (MPD) police-initiated citation release program. The expanded guidelines modified DC’s

 policy that allowed police to release certain non-violent felony adult arrestees on citation

after processing them at a police station without holding the arrestee in jail or bringing him/her

before a judge (DC General Order ., ). The goal of the policy modification was to reduce

the city’s custodial footprint and decrease coronavirus disease  (COVID-) transmission in

jails, given that a “high number of custodial arrests” would “significantly impair the function-

ing of the Superior Court’” amid a public health emergency (DC EO--, , Attachment A,

p. ). The more expansive use of citation release in DC was a direct effort to decarcerate the jail

population and lighten court caseloads by releasing certain non-violent felony offenders and was

in place until it was terminated on May ,  (DC EO--, ). We examine this novel,

real-world policy change to understand if it temporarily amplified lawbreaking or if it allowedfor

a reduction in the system’s custodial footprint without significantly increasing crime.

To our knowledge, there has been no systematic examination of a citation release program of

this kind. There is a paucity of evidence more generally on non-custodial arrests and their effect

on crime (Fradella & Purdon, ). Research on one of the closest analogues, releaseon recogni-

zance (ROR), is also limited and provides inconsistent evidence for offending outcomes. Another

close analogue, police-led diversion, incorporates a rehabilitative program aimed to prevent fur-

ther criminal justice involvement for offenders and indicates the potential for reducedreoffending

(Wilson et al., ). What distinguishes Washington DC’s citation release program from these

closely related practices is that it only aimed to divert adult arrestees from experiencing pre-trial

jail incarceration; it had no specific intent to redirect offenders awayfrom the formal sanctioning

process altogether.

The literature on deterrence theory and criminal sanctioning suggests that the program expan-

sion should have influenced criminal behavior, though the direction is not entirely clear. By

releasing arrestees on citation rather than holding them in jail or bringing them before a judge,

the directive may havetriggered short-term punishment avoidance effects that encouraged further

lawbreaking (Stafford & Warr, ). On the other hand, criminologists have long recognizedthat

incarceration, even brief stints, can do more harm than good via deviance amplification (Lemert,

), criminal learning (Akers, ), defiance (Sherman, ), and destabilization more gen-

erally (e.g., Maruna, ; Travis et al., ). The present study examines whether this unique

form of police-led diversion can siphon adult arrestees from the criminal justice system without

substantially increasing crime.

In this research, we examine the impact of the DC MPD’s expanded police-initiated citation

release program using open-access data from the Washington,DC, MPD and Department of Cor-

rections (DOC). Weestimate a multivariate time series model of the jail population, arrest counts,

and crime counts from  to . By including an indicator for the duration of the program

modification (April  through May ), we identify its effect, if any, on criminal offend-

ing while accounting for lagged relationships between crime, arrests, and the jail population. We

examine the policy expansion’s impact on different violent and property offenses (i.e., homicide,

sexual abuse, robbery, assault with a weapon, burglary, motor vehicle theft, theft from a motor

vehicle, and other thefts). The expanded guidelines, at least in theory, should have the strongest