Introduction

The overwhelming majority of those who are incarcerated will someday be released to rejoin their communities. That act of reentry is of utmost importance to the state and was a priority of multiple Illinois governors over the past 30 years.^[1] The SAFE-T Act,^[2] which took effect January 1, 2022 mandates major changes to supervision after release from incarceration. These changes are, in many cases, rooted in public debate and policies that go back more than a century. This article is intended to provide the reader with a broad understanding of the history and context of parole in Illinois, from passing its initial parole law in 1895,^[3] to the replacement of parole with mandatory supervised release (MSR) in 1978 and the most recent reforms required by the SAFE-T Act.^[4]

In doing so the article will touch on changes over time to the following:

• The length of time that individuals are expected to remain in prison for a given sentence.

• The process by which individuals are released from prison and, relatedly, who has discretion over these decisions

• The information used to evaluate who is released from prison and when they are released.

• The relative number of individuals under supervision/parole over time compared to the number of individuals in prison and the total population of residents in the state.

• Recurring public and governmental concerns with the operation of parole.

The presentation of these issues is intentionally brief in nature and seeks to provide definitions for concepts such as parole and MSR as they are presented throughout the article and to situate them within their historical context, as the meaning of these terms has shifted over time. Throughout the article reference is made to multiple interconnected graphs (figures), depicting the total number of individuals in prison and on parole/MSR as well as a reference line showing 0.1% of the Illinois population (this number is equivalent to 100 per 100,000) over time. In addition to the figures, a single higher resolution diagram showing the entire timeline since 1830 is provided as supplementary material.

In the same vein, in depth discussion of many points will be omitted to provide the reader with a clearer narrative of what parole for adult offenders is, and was, at various points in Illinois history. In particular, the reader should be aware that a multitude of smaller revisions to offense classification and sentencing guidelines have been omitted in order to focus on larger reforms that have clear historical and/or present relevance. Likewise, the system for juvenile offenders is not covered, and important issues such as racial and economic equity are not covered.

As a quick note on terminology, naming practices have changed multiple times since the late 19^th century: this applies to how legislation is referenced in speeches and written reports by both government officials and the press. The terminology used in this article generally reflects the language used by the contemporary cited sources.

19th Century Illinois Penitentiary System and Parole

The de facto first official parole in Illinois was the release of prisoners of war from Alton Penitentiary during the Civil War^[5]. This was likely motivated by the overcrowded and unsafe conditions at Alton. In this context, a paroled prisoner was released on their honor to exit prison and not rejoin combat. The term parole would also be applied to enslaved people who had been permitted limited freedom to travel or work^[6]. Consistent with this, in 19^th century Illinois, prisoners were sometimes leased to private companies for work^[7], though this form of contract labor was banned in Illinois in 1886^[8]. Though not technically parole, these arrangements de facto allowed individuals to be released from prison to outside employment and were precursors to the later parole system’s operations.

In 1895, Illinois passed its first parole law, generally referred to as the Illinois Parole Law, and introduced indeterminate sentencing for all but the most severe crimes such as rape, murder, and treason.^[9] Under the 1895 law, a minimum sentence would be given for a specific crime at a specific prison. The law gave prison wardens the power to release individuals on parole after serving that minimum time. The maximum amount of time an individual would serve depended on the crime the individual was convicted of and the warden’s decision on whether to grant parole prior to that time.

Prior to 1895, sentencing was set as a definite, as it was termed at the time,^[10] number of years based on crime type, with no form of parole or early release. Proponents of the parole system believed that these definite sentences often led to shorter sentences with less chance for rehabilitation (while incarcerated) and higher chances of corruption at the level of the individual judge and/or prosecutor.^[11] Some crimes remained definite sentence crimes (murder, rape, kidnapping, and treason) under the 1895 law. In the initial 1895 parole system, wardens had near absolute discretion over release, and based their decision on individuals behavior while incarcerated and their perceived risk of offending, the latter often depending heavily on who was willing to sponsor the individual on parole as there were no staff to monitor those released from prison.

If granted parole, individuals would sign a parole agreement with conditions such as keeping a job or refraining from alcohol use, and would have a sponsor.^[12] In practice, this meant that the early parole system was characterized by public and private partnerships, with wardens establishing relationships with charitable organizations as well as businesses/employers who would, essentially, supervise parolees, either by assisting them in finding housing or employment, or by directly employing them, and thereafter sending monthly reports to the warden^[13]. As a result of these differing arrangements, parolee living conditions varied considerably, as some parties were highly motivated to help parolees become independent and avoid breaking the law, while others actively sought to exploit low wage workers with limited rights.^[14]

In 1899, Illinois amended its parole law to provide for one parole agent per prison responsible for visiting parolees. In practice, the system remained largely the same due to the small number of agents. The small number of agents was compounded the fact that most agents’ travel was largely focused on bringing those who violated the terms of their agreement back to prison.^[15]

1915-1917 – Parole Placed Under the Department of Public Welfare

In 1915 and 1917, a series of reforms were passed that substantially altered parole in Illinois and the organization of the administration. Under these reforms, individuals sentenced to definite terms (e.g, for murder, rape, kidnapping) became eligible for parole after serving the greater of one third of their sentence or the statutory minimum allowable sentence for the crime. Those serving life sentences became eligible after 20 years.^[16] The Civil Administrative Code, also passed in 1917, consolidated the parole and pardon systems into the Division of Pardons and Parole under the Department of Public Welfare, itself in charge of the prison system.^[17]This moved both the decision to grant parole and the administration of parole supervision away from prison wardens, and consolidated those powers under a new central authority instead.^[18]

The administration of parole supervision was further organized into districts based on the location of parolees instead of the prison they were released from. The number of agents was also increased from 9 in 1915 to 20 in 1917, to supervise approximately 2,000 individuals throughout the state. Decisions about whether or not to grant parole were determined by a part -time appointed board called the Board of Pardons and Parole, within the same organization administering parole supervision and the prison system.^[19] (For the sake of simplicity, the Board of Pardons and Parole and its similarly named successors will be referred to as the parole board, prior to the 1978 abolishment of parole, after which it becomes the Prisoner Review Board.) ^[20]

The central administration benefitted record keeping considerably. Parolee records from this era until the introduction digital technologies beginning in the 1960s and 1970s are still housed at the Illinois State Archives. Though the total population under supervision was only tabulated as needed, the total prison population began to be tabulated and tracked at the state level, both of which are visible in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Parolee and Prison Populations 1895-1965

Note: Figure 1 is a composite of multiple sources detailed in references. Note that while prison population totals become available on a yearly basis starting around 1917, parole MSR statistics prior to 1941 are based on public statements by officials and reporting^[21].

1926-1928 – Parole Board Becomes Independent After Scandal

In 1926, the chairman of the parole board, Will Colvin^[22] resigned, as two grand juries investigated evidence^[23] that the board had been exchanging early parole for bribes and/or political favor^[24]. This led Governor Len Smalls^[25] to appoint H.G. Clabaugh as chairman of the parole board^[26]. Clabaugh took substantial action to reform the parole board and win public trust in the institution: 1) he made all parole hearings public, 2) he requested that the state legislature make the parole board independent of the Department of Public Welfare (and therefore the prison administration and the supervision of parole), and 3) convened an external commission of academics to advise whether indeterminate sentencing and parole should continue and, if so, how they should be operated.

As a result, in 1927, the Illinois legislature separated the parole board, making it independent from the Department of Public Welfare, the prisons, and the administration responsible for supervising parolees. The board was also expanded to nine appointed members, giving it substantially higher capacity, though these seem to have been part time appointments based on later reporting.^[27] The report from the academic commission was released in 1928^[28] and largely supported the system of indeterminate sentencing combined with parole as effective for reducing re-offense by released individuals^[29]. The commission also observed that though the new parole board had greater capacity to review cases, and no evidence of intentional political influence could be observed, its methods of judging cases largely resembled the prior board in terms of focusing on face-to-face interviews with potential parolees and review of collected case files.^[30]

1933 – Establishment of Risk Assessment in the Parole System

While not adopted by Clabaugh’s parole board, the 1928 report contained seminal work by sociologist Ernest Burgess, which was adopted later as integral part of the criminal justice system nationally. This work analyzed 3,000 parolees’ prison and post-incarceration records and identified 22 predictive factors into an actuarial table for estimating the risk of whether or not a parolee would reoffend.^[31]

after a large prison riot was attributed by both rioters and administrators as being a result of overcrowding , the public sought a way to safely determine who could be released.^[32] The Department of Public Welfare then began including results from Burgess’ actuarial tables in the case files provided to the parole board for review in 1931. This eventually led to sociologists being hired by the Department of Public Welfare in 1933 and investing in the actuarial methods developed by Burgess and their further development.^[33] This aspect of parole in Illinois remained and grew until the 1970s, with sociologists conducting numerous studies while working at the department^[34] and further developing risk assessment tools. However, as can be seen in Figure 1, there was no trend to increase parole release in the 1930s.

1933-39 – Early Mass Incarceration

Throughout the 1930s, a confluence of factors led to Illinois reaching a maximum prison population of 13,444 in 1939.^[35] The first was the prohibition of alcohol from 1920-1933, and the related policing efforts to prevent gang activity, which lead to increased admissions. The second was the parole board remaining conservative in granting parole and liberal in revoking parole after it was granted, which continued even as admissions decreased in the late 1930s.^[36] This approach was partly rooted in Clabaugh’s approach to regaining public trust in the late 1920s.^[37]

Press coverage put great emphasis on high profile cases of violent recidivism by individuals granted parole, which both proponents and detractors of the parole system agreed led to parole being granted sparingly in the late 1930s.^[38] In Figure 1, it can be seen that there are relatively few data points for the parole population in the 1930s, however the population under parole supervision maintained a level around 4,500 while the prison population peaked at over 13,000.

1933 also saw the creation of the Illinois Penitentiary System within the Department of Public Welfare.^[39] Prior to this reform, convicted offenders were sentenced to a specific prison. However, after this reform, sentences were applied more generally to the statewide Illinois Penitentiary System.

1941 – Department of Public Safety

In 1941, the Illinois legislature passed administrative reforms that created the Department of Public Safety.^[40] Prison and parole administration moved from the Department of Public Welfare to the newly formed Department of Public Safety, which also handled various other public safety functions, such as criminal identification, highway patrol, and crime prevention. Through this organizational change, parole supervision was treated more as a policing duty as opposed to the earlier focus on welfare. The parole board remained its own separate entity. Notably, the Department of Public Safety also began tracking the number of individuals under parole supervision on a monthly basis, providing greater detail, as shown in Figure 1 from 1941 onward and in the entirety of Figure 2.

1943 – Connors-Rennick Parole Reform

In 1943, the Illinois legislature passed parole reforms sponsored by State Senators Connors and Rennick^[41] This legislation was passed after previous failed attempts, including an earlier version that was passed, but voided after being deemed unconstitutional. The Connors-Rennick law, as it was called^[42], enabled judges to render minimum and maximum sentences that could only be overridden by vote of the full parole board. This was intended by its sponsors to limit the power of the parole board relative to the judiciary to determine when individuals were released.

This may have been expected to further decrease the number of paroles granted, as minimum sentences could both limit the likelihood of early parole and increase the prison population. However, historical data indicates that such decreases did not occur. As seen in Figure 1, during this time prison populations declined after peaking in 1939. These decreases continued through the 1940s. Figure 1 also shows the earliest consistently available data on the number of individuals under parole supervision Parole trends mirror declines in prison populations throughout the 1940s.

The actual number of those released on parole due to the Connors-Rennick Act may have been offset by parole releases granted to individuals who volunteered for military service. From 1940 to 1947, Illinois paroled 2,942 individuals serving time for felony crimes to the Army, and once paroled to the Army the period of parole supervision itself was additionally shortened.^[43] This was at least a contributor to the reduction in prison populations and parolee populations (as well as at least one of the short term increases in parolee population), visible in Figure 2. While not necessarily the only cause of the decrease prison and parole population, this was certainly one factor.

1950-1970 - Shift to Service Perspective

The system of sentencing and organization of parole in Illinois were relatively stable between 1950 and 1970, with a few relatively minor legal shifts. In 1951, the Connors-Rennick Act sustained a final legal challenge^[44] and, subsequently, remained the prevailing system until the 1970s. One substantive change to sentencing during this period took effect in 1957,^[45] giving judges the option to sentence repeat offenders to a lengthy indeterminate sentence instead of a mandatory life sentence.

This change was perhaps indicative of an overall shift towards a stronger focus on rehabilitation that continued through the 1960s. During the 1960s parole agents began to adopt a counselor service perspective instead of a public safety perspective.^[46] Halfway houses were established to ease reintegration into communities, and in the late 1960s work and day release centers were created. Notably however, the latter were considered in-prison custody and not parole, though those individuals at the centers were able to work outside of prison prior to parole.

The public and legislative focus during this time was on the operation and decision making^[47] of the parole board as well as the administration of parole supervision. During this time, changes in overall parole populations were relatively small, compared to the later changes to come.^[48]

1970s – Large-Scale Criminal Justice Reform

The 1970s brought sweeping criminal justice reforms to Illinois. In 1970, the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) was created^[49], placing increased focus individual needs of those who were incarcerated and separating prison and parole operations from state police operations .^[50] Shortly after this the parole board became full time.^[51] In 1972, the Unified Code of Corrections was adopted^[52]. Although the reforms primarily applied to prison conditions, the Code also shifted authority for determining the intensity and level of supervision for parolees exclusively to parole administration within IDOC and away from the parole board. The parole board remained an independent entity however and was still responsible for determining parole conditions. An additional change impacting parole and supervision was the implementation of statutory parole,^[53] which granted parole six months prior to completion of the maximum sentence (including for parole ineligible offenses). This effort was intended to ensure that all persons exiting prison had some degree of re-entry supervision.

At the end of 1973, Illinois had approximately 5,600 ^[54] adults serving sentences in prison (approximately 50 persons per 100,000 in the Illinois population^[55]; Figure 2), the lowest since 1925, when the total was approximately 5,287 or 72 persons per 100,000 in the Illinois population were incarcerated^[56]. This decrease can be partly attributed to new policies whereupon persons sentenced to prison for under six months served their sentence in jail as opposed to prison.^[57] The prison population’s low point coincided with rising crime, leading to public scrutiny of the parole board^[58]. Following this historic low in prison population came the fastest growth in prison populations on record as the prison population reached 10,982 by June 1977^[59] (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Parolee and Prison Populations 1960-1990

Concurrent with this sharp rise in prison populations, the Illinois legislature conducted a two-year review of the parole and sentencing system in Illinois from 1975 to 1977. The review resulted in a series of reform bills^[60]. What the legislature eventually passed in 1977 was promoted as a ‘get tough on crime’ law^[61] and included considerable changes to sentencing as well. In particular, it established an additional class of felonies (‘X’) for sentencing and added aggravating factors to existing criminal offenses that could be considered by judges, allowing for longer sentences (e.g., offenses occurring near a place or worship, offenses involving a child victim, or a repeat offense).

Broader reforms went into effect February 1978^[62] and were root in David Fogel’s^[63] Justice Model^[64] that pushed against rehabilitation/medical perspectives of incarceration in favor of transparent penalties and procedural fairness^[65]. This new system ended the era of indeterminate sentencing and parole, which had relied upon the parole board to make discretionary decisions regarding inmate release, and replaced it with as system designed to allowed almost no discretion by anyone besides the trial judge and/or jury on the length of time individuals spent in prison and once released under mandatory supervised release (MSR; the successor to parole in Illinois; described in fuller detail below). The sentencing changes that took effect in 1978 are summarized in Table 1.

Under the revised system of determinate sentencing and MSR, which, by and large, remains in effect, all sentences are ordered by a judge as a specific time, e.g., 6 years. For each day that individuals are not involved in disciplinary action, they earn a day off their sentence (thus, determinate sentences are considered “Day for Day” sentences), so that a sentence of 6 years is expected to result in many or even most individuals serving 3 actual years in prison. The IDOC Director can additionally grant up to discretionary 90 days off, which is typically award for good conduct such as completion of courses but can also be used to release individuals slightly early when the administration deems it appropriate.

Critically, under MSR, when prisoners are released, they have fulfilled their prison sentence. Thus, after release, supervision is considered mandatory supervised release (MSR) and not parole from their prison sentence. This was not the case for parole as originally introduced in 1895, where parole was, at least initially, seen as revocable reprieve from serving the full sentence^[66]. A particular implication of this distinction is that if someone violates the terms of MSR, they could be returned to prison up and until the maximum of their remaining MSR term, not the remaining calendar days of their original nominal sentence. So for example, someone sentenced to 6 years for a class 2 felony would be released to MSR after approximately 3 years, and if their release was revoked they could only be held for one additional year for a total of 4 years, not 6 years.

The parole board was formally abolished and replaced with the Prisoner Review Board (PRB). In practice, the PRB continued many duties of the parole board and continued to adjudicate supervision conditions and revocation decisions for both those remaining under the old parole law and MSR. Because so many duties remained present and the PRB remained very active for years handling all individuals who had been sentenced to indeterminate sentences, the word parole remains commonplace in both the public press and government administration in Illinois, however it generally refers to MSR.

However, the board no longer had discretion over when someone would be released from prison, excepting that they had authority to approve IDOC requests related to reinstatement and/or reduction in time earned credits^[67]. This also de facto ended the era of risk assessment tools being used during release decisions, as had been adopted by Burgess in the 1930s.

1980s - Mandatory Supervised Release and the War on Drugs

By 1982, and as seen in Figure 2, the Illinois prison population reached 13,967 (or roughly 115 persons per 100,000 in the Illinois population), exceeding its prior maximum of 13,444 (reached in 1939, roughly 170 persons per 100,000; Figure 2). By 1987, the prison population had increased even further to reach its highest level relative to the population, at 19,928, or 174 persons per 100,000.

Starting in the mid-1980s, Illinois frequently modified sentencing criteria for drug offenses. This included increased sentence durations for drug offenses (effective January 1, 1986) and decreased quantities of drugs required to receive the most severe penalties.^[68] This, combined with determinate sentencing/MSR and the sentences related to X class offenses, contributed to further increases in the prison population.^[69]

From 1978 to 1987, the population of people under post-release supervision fluctuated between approximately 8,000 and 12,000 as the remainder of those serving pre-1978 parole completed their terms and an increasing number of individuals entered supervision under the shorter MSR rules. In 1987, 84 of 128 parole agents were laid off from IDOC, leaving 44 agents to manage 11,500 individuals under supervision.^[70] Though agents were rehired starting 18 months later, parole agents still had large caseloads on average, between 188 and 260 parolees per agent. When laid off agents returned to work, it was not treated as return to the prior state, but as of a ‘rebuilding’ the department.^[71]

1990s - Community Services, PreStart, and Truth-in-Sentencing Laws

In July 1991, the Illinois Department of Corrections began implementation of the PreStart program.^[72] The PreStart program was intended to reduce recidivism and technical violations by providing additional programming in prison prior to release (Phase I) as well as supportive services post-release (Phase II). The program was also intended to shift the emphasis of supervision from enforcement to supportive assistance, so much so that enforcement functions of supervision (e.g., to detect parole violations) were separated from more supportive functions (e.g., to make referrals related to housing, employment, education, etc.) Finally, the PreStart program was also intended to improve resource utilization, (i.e., allow operation of the system with more people under supervision by fewer agents). The department shifted operations from assigning individuals to their own agents to assigning them to a parole office, where the caseload was shared across agents.^[73]

A program assessment indicated that completion of the PreStart program was statistically related with lower rates of recidivism^[74], and especially to lower levels of technical violations that would have lead to reincarceration^[75]. Unfortunately, it also found implementations issues in terms of training, funding, and staffing the program especially during the supervision portion (Phase II).

Figure 3

Parolee and Prison Populations 1990 to 2021

In 1995, Illinois passed its first truth-in-sentencing (TIS) laws. The original bill was found unconstitutional, however a revision was drafted and passed in 1998^[76]. The Illinois TIS law changed the day-for-day provisions of the original 1978 statute for certain offenses. Under the 1978 system, prisoners were expected to be released after serving approximately 50% of their time. Under TIS, fewer earned credits were allowed for certain violent offenses (primarily fro the class X felonies established by the 1978 reform), thus requiring prisoners to serve a minimum of 85% of their time. TIS laws have been subsequently modified multiple times, primarily to add offenses to the 85% category. Additionally, a 75% tier was also introduced for certain drug related offenses^[77].

By the end of the decade, PreStart Phase II was essentially discontinued. Supervision again focused on enforcement and staffing was increased, specifically toward the goal of bolstering surveillance.^[78]

2000s - Operational Reforms

In 2001, parole agent staffing returned to levels comparable to the early 1980s (roughly 91 parolees per agent as compared to 80 parolees per agent in 1986 prior to the layoffs). However, the focus of supervision was very much shifted back towards surveillance activities. For example, parole agents participated in joint operations with Chicago Police specifically aimed at finding parole violations.^[79] This resulted in a sharp decrease in the parole population between 2000 and 2001^[80] (Figure 3). These decreases were followed by legislation establishing mandatory conditions for all parolees, such as parolees consenting to search of their person/property, providing true information, and submitting to drug testing.^[81]

An administrative reform program called Operation Spotlight began in 2003 and focused on improving technology, case management practices, and hiring additional agents.^[82] However hiring fell short of goals, so that it merely kept up with increasing parole populations, based on reported agent staffing and the parole population. Concurrently with Operation Spotlight and administrative efforts to improve reentry programming^[83], the legislature passed substantial reforms that gave the PRB discretion to sentence high risk sex offenders to indefinite parole supervision. This placed additional conditions on sex offenders to register with law enforcement, restricted where they could live and work, and created programs for GPS monitoring of their location.^[84]

2010s - Evidence-Based Reforms

The Crime Reduction Act of 2009 went into effect on January 1^st, 2010.^[85] While not containing any specific changes to parole and/or sentencing, it established the Adult Redeploy, a prison diversion program that provides supportive services to low-risk justice-involved individuals. The Act also established the Sentencing Policy Advisory Council to advise the legislature on sentencing impact. The Act placed emphasis on evidence-based practice, specifically as it relates to sentencing, as well as creating and supporting mechanisms to allow low-risk offenders to avoid incarceration and/or be released sooner. This effort was further bolstered by the formation of the Illinois State Commission on Criminal Justice Reform, which made policy recommendations to reduce prison populations by 25% over 10 years.^[86]

These efforts informed passage of numerous bills in the 2010s that were largely focused on systemic issues related to community impact of crime, sentencing, and rehabilitation with the intent of decreasing incarceration (and, therefore, decreasing the MSR population over time; Table 2).

2020-2021 - COVID-19 and the SAFE-T Act

In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted Illinois, resulting in statewide stay at home orders and remote work. This impacted the operation of state’s attorney’s offices, courts, and law enforcement agencies.^[87] In particular, the impact on prison populations has been dramatic, and the impact on parole populations is beginning to be seen. Moreover, during the pandemic, a major criminal justice reform bill, the SAFE-T Act, was passed, expanding IDOC’s authority to grant sentence credits and significantly reducing the lengths of mandatory supervised release for most offenses.

Prison admissions in Illinois during the pandemic are dramatically lower than prior years. Because people continue to exit prison based on their existing sentences, the overall prison population has dropped from 39,306 people in June 2019 to 27,413 in June 2021^[88], the lowest prison population since 1990. Moreover, this shift is more pronounced for those serving shorter sentences, as that population inherently turns over quicker, as seen in Figure 1.

Consequently, it is likely that decreases in the parole population seen during the same period (see Figure 3 for the decline in parole population from mid-2010 that accelerates during COVID-19) will continue. This will in turn be accelerated by the SAFE-T Act, as shown in Table 1 on the rightmost column, which halves the duration of MSR terms for felonies (except murder, sex offenses, those required to serve at least 85% of their sentence pursuant to Truth in Sentencing laws) sentenced after January 1, 2022. This is likely to decrease the population under supervision over time as parole terms will end more quickly. In addition, under the SAFE-T Act, MSR is only to be imposed on lesser (Class 3 and 4) felonies if the PRB determined sufficiently high risk using an evidence-based risk needs assessment.

Conclusion

This historical review is guided by the principle that past criminal justice policy and practice can provide a view of the future^[89]. Although the murder of George Floyd in 2020 and the protests that followed were seen as the impetus for passing the SAFE-T Act, the strategies it enacts for supervision are older. The concept of risk assessment was introduced in 1928 in the wake of the parole scandal. The proposal of length reductions to MSR adopted by the SAFE-T Act are nearly identical to a proposal from 1986^[90]. Senate Bill 2333 which has received considerable press, proposes parole hearings for those who have server more than 20 years in prison^[91], closely resembling the parole reforms of 1915.

Another perspective worth mentioning is that laws are themselves part of and products of culture^[92]. While the text of this article has focused primarily on the passage of legislation and the rise and fall of prison and parole populations, a close examination of Figures 1, 2, and 3 and the supplementary composite shows that changes in prison and parole populations often precede legislation that might otherwise be associated with it. For example, prior to the passage of determinate sentencing in 1978, the prison and parole populations were already sharply increasing. Prisons were already over capacity before the passage of truth-in-sentencing. One possible interpretation is that once a viewpoint has gained traction in society it is likely to express itself through administrative priorities such as the level of policing, the aggressiveness of prosecution, the length of sentences levied by judges, and, in the case of parole, the PRB’s decision whether or not to return a parolee to prison for a technical violation. All of these are administrative decisions that can occur without legislation or guidance by the executive branch and substantively impact parole and prison populations.^[93]

Finally, for readers interested in learning more about prison and parole practices in Illinois, there is a great deal of information available to the public for further review. This includes annual reports, fact sheets, and data available on the Illinois Department of Correction’s website^[94], policy analysis available via the Sentencing Policy Advisory Council’s website^[95], and ICJIA’s Research Hub^[96]. Accompanying the publication of this article, ICJIA will also be publishing an interactive Parole Population Data Explorer that enables users to examine data on parole populations over time in different regions of Illinois, including demographics and gender. This tool will be made available on ICJIA’s Research Hub.