Expanding earned credits could improve rehabilitation, reduce overcrowding, and support correctional staff wellness.
When Ray Guerica received his “out date,” an estimated date when his prison sentence would end, he was in his mid-twenties and had already spent nearly five years in jail waiting to learn the final outcome of his case.
He calculated the remainder of his sentence — the total number of years minus the amount already served — then multiplied by 85 percent. Under Illinois’ truth-in-sentencing laws, he would be required to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence. At most, he could earn 15 percent off for good conduct.
What remained was about 16 years.
“I was depressed,” Guerica said. “But I could see a glimmer of light knowing that I’m doing 85 percent and you know, maybe something down the line will happen [to reduce the sentence].”
For more than 12 thousand Illinoisans, mandatory sentencing laws impact not just their release dates but their daily lives. Truth-in-sentencing laws, passed in the 1990s during the height of “tough on crime” policymaking, severely restrict the amount of sentence credit people can earn. In practice, they keep people in prison longer than in many other states — even when they complete programs, maintain clean disciplinary records, or demonstrate rehabilitation.
Now, a growing coalition of advocates, directly impacted people, and some lawmakers is pushing to roll that system back.
Two newly proposed bills in Springfield would significantly expand earned sentence credits and ease harsh sentencing restrictions. The legislation is backed by the Credit for Change coalition, a statewide group arguing that Illinois’ current system is costly, counterproductive, and out of step with national trends.
Learning from other states
Fourteen states have already have reformed sentencing laws to expand opportunities for earned credits, an analysis from the Credit for Change coalition found.
“What’s interesting is that they don’t fit into any category like red or blue or purple states,” said Marta Nelson, Director of Sentencing Reform at Vera Institute of Justice, a coalition member. “They really are the whole gamut.”
West Virginia’s earned-credit system offers one day of credit for every day served—effectively a 50 percent reduction in nearly all cases. The day-for-day system applies broadly, excluding only people serving life sentences.
Wyoming has also expanded earned credit opportunities, while Maryland offers trailblazing sentence reductions that total up to 20 days per month. Reformers also point to other states including California, North Dakota and Indiana as evidence that sentence-credit expansion is not a partisan experiment but a mainstream correctional practice.
Illinois, by contrast, remains among the more restrictive states because it implements a rigid mandatory minimum policy, restricting the amount of time people can earn off their sentences, while remaining one of few only 16 states that don’t offer parole.
Survivors want reform
Supporters of reform argue that the public conversation around sentencing reform often excludes the very people policymakers claim to protect: survivors of violence.
“For victims and others who have just been used as pawns in the system, we’ve done a terrible job of listening to them and to what they actually need to do to heal,” Nelson said. “Policymakers have excluded the voices of people harmed by violence [from] a chance to shape the justice system.”
Advocates say many survivors want investments in prevention, services, and accountability — not simply longer prison terms. But tough sentencing laws are frequently justified in their name.
The media landscape compounds the problem, Nelson told The Chicago Reporter, highlighting stories of recidivism while successful reentries go largely unnoticed.
“Every day we see people succeed—they go home, they’d find jobs, they’d be successful. And none of that gets reported on,” Nelson said. “The person who is on parole and does something terrible is front-page news.”
“I want the local news to lead with, ‘Today, 300 people were released from prison a year ago and they’re all fine,’” Nelson added.
The harms of understaffing
Beyond fairness arguments, supporters say expanding earned credits would directly address Illinois’ prison staffing crisis.
The Illinois Department of Corrections has struggled with staffing shortages and mandatory overtime for years. Katrina Baugh, Senior Policy Director at Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a reform advocacy organization, told TCR. Reducing the incarcerated population through earned credit expansion would improve working conditions for staff as well as living conditions for people inside.
Illinois’ prison staffing crisis has intensified pressure on corrections officers, exacerbating an already serious mental health problem. IDOC is operating with a 28% deficit in security staff and a 23% overall staffing shortfall, a John Howard Association report reveals, the result of years of unfilled positions and declining officer numbers. The shortage has contributed to more frequent lockdowns, increased overtime, and conditions that staff say make facilities harder to run safely.
A mental health crisis
That strain shows up in officers’ health. National research indicates about 31% of corrections staff report symptoms of depression, roughly three times the rate of the general U.S. adult population. PTSD affects about 34% of custody staff, nearly ten times higher, and correctional officers face suicide rates more than double the national average. Roughly 35% of officers report having considered suicide in their lifetime, underscoring the heavy toll of the work.
Reduced ratio, increased safety
“When we correct the staff-to-incarcerated-person ratio, we just won’t have this need for exorbitant amounts of overtime,” Baugh said.
She described sentence credits as one of the strongest behavioral incentives available inside prison walls.
“The most powerful incentive that you can offer to an incarcerated person is the opportunity to earn more freedom and the possibility of reuniting with their family sooner,” she said.
Credits, she added, are “an enormous infusion of not just hope, which also improves morale and mental well-being.”
When people have meaningful opportunities to reduce their time, Baugh said, “people are going to be working every day to make sure that they do not have any disciplinary infractions, that they are engaging in as many rehabilitative programs as they can.”
Without those incentives — particularly in facilities that rely heavily on lockdowns — prison conditions can become destructive.
“Prison is already a confining experience and one where you have very limited opportunities and limited movement,” Baugh said. “But to literally lock someone inside a concrete box for at least 23 hours a day and to not give them regular access to speaking with their loved ones or the sun, or programming — it moves from punishment into cruelty.”
A glimmer of light
For Guerica, the math of 85 percent felt crushing — but not entirely hopeless.
Even within a restrictive system, the possibility of earned credit created what he called a “glimmer of light.” Reform advocates argue that expanding that light—making earned credit broader, more transparent, and more attainable—would create safer facilities and more successful reentries.
Take action
Advocates are urging Illinois residents to weigh in as lawmakers consider rolling back truth-in-sentencing laws. Through a statewide letter campaign hosted on Action Network, supporters can send messages to legislators calling for expanded earned sentence credits and shorter mandatory time‑served requirements.
Visit Action Network to learn more.