Key Findings
- The Black-White imprisonment disparity in Illinois prisons fell 41%, from 13.2-to-1 to 7.8-to-1, during the period from 2000 to 2019. The largest disparity reduction occurred in imprisonment for drug offenses, with the rate for Black adults decreasing by 76% and the rate for White adults increasing by 82%.
- Changes in prison admissions were the primary drivers of the disparity reduction, with length of stay contributing virtually nothing to changes in disparity. The overall admission rate disparity fell by 39% during the study period.
- Statutory changes to sentencing appeared to have had no effect on disparity. Analysis indicates that none of the laws implemented during the study period led to statistically detectable effects on racial disparity.
Research by the Council on Criminal Justice Pushing Toward Parity project shows that the gap between Black and White state imprisonment rates nationwide has narrowed significantly since the start of the 21st century. To better understand the trends and identify policies and practices that may drive them, the Council chose 12 states for closer investigation.
This brief on Illinois outlines the key state disparity trends, summarizes the potential influences on them, and statistically assesses the impact of those influences on the trends.
Notes
Although this brief acknowledges trends and factors from the pre-study period of 2000 to 2009, the scope of the analyses is limited to circumstances present in the state between 2010 and 2019. This brief also acknowledges potential disparity trend factors that implicate variables beyond the scope of this brief. For more details on methodology, framing considerations, and limitations, see the supplemental methodology report.
Click here for an overview of Illinois' resident and prison population demographics.
GLOSSARY
- Disparity ratios are a measure that compares imprisonment rates across two groups of people. A Black-White imprisonment disparity ratio of 3-to-1, for example, means that Black adults are incarcerated at three times the rate of White adults. A ratio of one indicates no difference between the two groups, or “parity.” A disparity ratio lower than one means that Black adults are less likely to experience imprisonment than White adults.
- New court commitments refer to prison admissions that result from a conviction for a new crime rather than for violations of community supervision.
- Rates are calculated per 100,000 respective adults. For example, the Black imprisonment rate is calculated per 100,000 Black adults. All rates refer to adult state prison populations; those in federal prisons and local jails are excluded.
- Parity refers to a disparity ratio of 1 (1-to-1).
Racial Disparities in Illinois
Between 2000 and 2020, the overall Black-White imprisonment rate disparity1 in Illinois fell by 42%, from 13.2-to-1 to 7.7-to-1 (Figure 1). This decrease was led by an 88% drop in the drug offense imprisonment rate disparity ratio. The smallest decrease in disparity occurred for violent crime, where the racial disparity ratio fell by 28%.
Figure 1: Black and White Imprisonment Rate Disparity Ratios by Major Offense Category, 2000–2020
The decrease in disparity in drug offense imprisonment occurred in a stair-step pattern, in which a leveling off or slight increase was followed by a decrease. Between 2000 and 2005, disparity in drug offense imprisonment rates fell by 58%, dropping from 36.2 to 15.2. The next decrease occurred between 2007 and 2011, during which the disparity ratio fell by 30%. Another decrease, of 59%, occurred between 2015 and 2020. Imprisonment disparity for violent and property crimes generally fell linearly throughout the study period, but at a much slower pace compared to drug offenses. The decrease in drug offense imprisonment disparity was driven by an increase in the White rate and a decrease in the Black rate. By comparison, for violent crime, the decrease in imprisonment disparity occurred almost exclusively because of an increase in the White rate (Figure 2). For property crimes, the decrease occurred because the Black imprisonment rate fell faster than the White rate. In 2020, decreases in imprisonment rates for all offense categories occurred as a result of responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. In Illinois, these decreases were consistent with national trends and were led by substantial decreases in admissions. Nationwide, prison populations fell by 15% in 2020;2 in Illinois, the White prison population fell by 23% and the Black prison population dropped by 24%.
Figure 2: Black and White Imprisonment Rates by Major Offense Category, 2000–2020
Because of the differential growth rates of imprisonment across offense categories, the race-specific composition of the prison population in Illinois changed during the study period. The share of the Black incarcerated population held for violent crime rose from 43% in 2000 to 60% in 2019, while the shares of people held for property and drug crimes fell (Figure 3). The share of the Black incarcerated population sentenced for drug offenses fell from 32% in 2000 to 12% in 2019, then dropped to 8% in 2020. The share of White people held for property crimes dropped from 36% in 2000 to 18% in 2019, then fell again to 16% in 2020, while the shares of White people held for violent crime and drug offenses increased.
Figure 3: Shares of Incarcerated Population by Race, 2000–2019
In 2020, the share of the Black and White incarcerated populations held for violent offenses increased further. At the end of 2020, 68% of Black and 56% of White incarcerated people were being held for violent offenses. The 2020 increases in shares held for violent offenses were nine times larger than any other one-year increase in the shares of Black and White adults held for those crimes.
Disparity in Prison Admissions and Length of Stay
Racial disparity in admission rates fell and generally followed the same pattern as racial disparity in imprisonment rates. Between 2000 and 2019, the overall admission rate disparity fell by 39% from 12.3 to 7.6. The decrease in overall admissions disparity was led by the decrease in admissions disparity for drug offenses, which fell by 84%, from 36 to 6 (Figure 4). Overall admission rate disparity ratios did not change appreciably from 2000 to 2019, and the same was true for disparity ratios for violent and property crimes.
Figure 4: Black-White Admissions Rate Disparity by Offense Category, 2000–2020
The White drug offense admissions rate doubled between 2000 and 2005, leading to a large, sustained drop in admissions disparity early in the study period. Then, from 2005 until about 2010, drug crime admission rates for both Black and White people fell. From 2010 to 2020, the Black drug offense admission rate continued to decline while the White rate leveled off (Figure 5). Hence, the decrease in drug offense admission rate disparity was led initially by increasing White admissions and later fueled by decreasing Black admissions. The 2020 drop in admissions for Black and White people was consistent with national trends in admissions, which fell by about one-third.3 For violent and property crimes, admission rates for Black and White people generally tracked each other with some year-to-year variation. Disparity in admissions for these offense categories did not change appreciably over the study period.
Figure 5: Admissions Rates by Offense Category and Race, 2000–2020
Overall
Violent Offenses
Property Offenses
Drug Offenses
From 2000 to 2019,4 there was no evidence of racial disparity in overall length of stay, although trends by offense category varied (Figure 6). For drug crimes, Black people could expect to serve about 20% less time, on average, than White people. For violent crime, disparity fell and approached parity by 2019.
Figure 6: Disparity in Length of Stay by Offense Category
Given the absence of disparity in overall length of stay, disparity in overall admission rates accounted for virtually all of the imprisonment rate disparity. For drug offenses, the shorter length of stay for Black people than White people reduced the imprisonment rate disparity to below what it would have been had Black and White people had equivalent lengths of stay.
Potential Disparity Trend Factors
Illinois maintained high incarcerated population counts with regular growth for the majority of the study period, only seeing reductions in about 2014. Legislation aimed at reducing the incarcerated population did not occur until 2009, with previous efforts focusing mainly on sentencing enhancement. Illinois is among the states that do not have a parole system.
Political Context
Both chambers of the Illinois Legislature remained in majority Democratic control throughout the study period, and Democrats controlled the governor’s office from 2003 to 2015. Stakeholders reported multiple shifts in leadership and priorities within state agencies, reflecting frequent turnover in the governor role during the study period.
Practice Reforms
Even when statutory efforts may have allowed for changes, stakeholders reported that change inside the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) was sometimes slow and not always compliant with the law. For example, though the Crime Reduction Act of 2009 required the use of risk and needs assessment throughout the criminal justice system (pretrial, prisons, probation, and parole), corresponding changes were not adopted for parole supervision for nearly a decade. Stakeholders said it required new leadership at IDOC before a risk assessment tool was identified and implemented for parole supervision. IDOC has had statutory authority to issue some discretionary credits that could affect early release, but stakeholders said there were changes in how these credits were used over the course of the study period. One significant change occurred in September 2009, when IDOC accelerated the use of meritorious release to address severe overcrowding in prisons. Within months, however, that effort came under political and public scrutiny amid reports that several people released under the new rules had been returned to prison quickly. In January 2010, then-Governor Pat Quinn ordered the suspension of the meritorious release push and extended the time incarcerated people were required to spend in prison before being considered for meritorious release. Stakeholders said the governor’s directive effectively ended IDOC’s use of meritorious credits until the pandemic. Also in 2009, legislation was passed to establish the Sentencing Policy Advisory Council, which was tasked with providing nonpartisan, data-based research for criminal justice-related bills coming before the legislature.
Additional Contextual Factors
In Illinois, parole was abolished in 1978 and replaced with Mandatory Supervised Release. Under Mandatory Supervised Release, individuals are sentenced by a judge, with one day automatically credited against the sentence for each day an individual has no disciplinary issues while in custody. With this system, people can essentially reduce their sentence by up to half if they exhibit good behavior behind bars. The Prisoner Review Board functions like a parole board by setting conditions of release and reviewing revocation decisions; however, the board cannot alter the time of release. Those who release serve the rest of their sentence under the supervision of the IDOC Parole Division. Stakeholders cited the handling of releases of people convicted of sex offenses as a factor that might have influenced prison population growth in Illinois. In 2005, legislators passed a law that prohibited anyone convicted of a sex offense from living in the same place as another person convicted of a sex offense. Stakeholders said the new rule made finding IDOC-approved housing very difficult for some people preparing to leave prison after serving time for sex crimes, causing continued incarceration for some. A 2019 court decision4 has relaxed some of these restrictions but has not eliminated all of the challenges for this population. In February 2015, Governor Bruce Rauner issued an executive order establishing the Criminal Justice Reform Commission, and stakeholders called this a significant moment in the state’s criminal justice reform efforts. The commission reviewed the state’s criminal justice and sentencing structure and practices, producing 27 recommendations over two years. Each recommendation was designed to help reduce the prison population by 25% by 2025. Specific to racial disparities, the commission recommended periodic implicit racial and ethnic bias training for those working in the criminal justice system, and, to enable disparity assessments, called for the collection and reporting of race and ethnicity data at every point in the system. Although not all recommendations were adopted during the study period–including those related to sentencing reductions–others–like increasing the application of sentencing credits and increasing diversion for some low-level crimes–were enacted through legislation or internal policy changes.
Statutory Reforms
Like many states, Illinois entered the new millennium continuing with the mostly punitive criminal justice approach it followed in the 1990s, which included legislative efforts that created new crimes or enhanced penalties. By the end of the first half of the study period, as the prison population continued to grow, stakeholders reported increasing interest in finding new approaches that would reduce the prison population and associated costs. This led to the passage of SB 1289, the Illinois Crime Reduction Act of 2009. The act established Adult Redeploy Illinois, an initiative that provides financial incentives to local jurisdictions for diversion programs; allowed for the distribution of resources toward reentry services; and required IDOC to utilize risk and needs assessment tools. Many stakeholders said this bill marked a significant shift for the state on criminal justice, ushering in an era focused more on data-driven decision making, diversion options, and programmatic changes. Although the Act included provisions intended to reduce the number of people in Illinois prisons, the population continued to climb, eventually reaching its peak (49,300) in 2012. Between 2009 and 2019, Illinois passed or implemented 31 bills that included changes to criminal sentencing. These bills were reviewed for inclusion in this analysis based on targeted populations, scope, and content, yielding 27 bills.6 A review of the 27 candidate bills produced seven themes that characterized sentencing reform in Illinois during the study period. Based solely on the frequency of the themes, sentencing reforms in Illinois were dominated by those that focused on:
- increasing or decreasing sentencing severity (22 laws)
- treatment programming (nine laws)
Less prevalent were reforms that focused on:
- expanding or restricting the discretion of criminal justice agency actors (six laws)
- good time or early release (three laws)
- repeat offenders (three laws)
- creating new offense categories (two laws)
- risk assessments (one law)
Fifteen bills focused on specific offense classes, while the others broadly applied to justice-involved groups (e.g., probationers and parolees), special populations (e.g., gangs), or broad offending categories. Of those focused on specific crimes, six bills targeted drug and DUI offenses, three focused on firearms and weapons violations, two dealt with domestic violence, and one each addressed identity theft and burglary. Many of the provisions in the candidate bills were beyond the scope of the study data. Because of this, the following analysis only addresses subsets of reforms whose elements could be measured:
- HB 597 (August 2009), which enhanced penalties for aggravated identity theft.
- HB 594 (August 2009), a bill that enhanced penalties when strangulation is used during domestic battery.
- HB 4124 (December 2009), which created the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member.
- HB 1032 (January 2010), a bill that enhanced penalties for selling or giving a firearm to a person convicted of a felony.
Analysis
The analysis of the impacts of reforms on disparity included an analysis of Black-White differences in preexisting trends and patterns, shifts in preexisting levels associated with the implementation of reforms, and post-reform trends. Analyses are detailed in the supplemental methodology report.7 The results show no racial differences in post-reform trends.
Discussion
Racial disparity in imprisonment in Illinois fell throughout the study period, fueled by a decrease in drug offense imprisonment disparity, which shrunk significantly, from 36-to-1 to 4-to-1. The change in imprisonment disparity was determined primarily by changing trends in admissions–overall and by offense category. There was no disparity in overall length of stay during the study period; throughout the study period, disparity in length of stay for violent crime trended toward parity and fell below one for both property and drug crimes, meaning that Black people admitted to prison for these offenses could expect to have a shorter length of stay than their White counterparts. Statutory changes enacted during the study period generally fell beyond the scope of analysis, as they focused on elements of corrections practice that were not measured in the data and did not address sentencing. Among the new laws that could be analyzed, a majority did not affect enough people during the study period to permit reliable analysis; those with a sufficiently large number of cases for analysis appeared to have had no effect on racial disparity
Illinois, like any state, has a distinct political and demographic history that influences the discussion of what does or does not work when addressing disparity in the criminal justice system. This state brief is one of 12 in the Pushing Toward Parity project, all of which seek to identify, what, if any, policy changes are associated with shifts in racial disparity and can serve as examples for states pursuing equity in their criminal justice system.
