Latest News

On July 1, 2022, the Pretrial Practices Data Oversight Board (“Board”) released a preliminary report in an effort to satisfy statutory requirements laid out in the Pretrial Fairness Act sections of Public Act 101-0652, known as the SAFE-T Act. Per the new law, the Board, convened last July by the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts (AOIC), was tasked with overseeing the collection and analysis of data pertaining to pretrial practices throughout Illinois’ circuit court systems. The purpose of these provisions was to increase transparency in Illinois court systems. 

The Board’s report met the bare-bones requirement of being released on time: but one year after the Board’s convening, little is known about pretrial data collected by 102 counties. The Board’s report provides many explanations of why data collection will be difficult, but fails to provide solutions to these problems. The Pretrial Data Board and the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts must do more to provide constructive solutions to the issues raised in this report in order for the Pretrial Fairness Act to be implemented successfully.

The report and its accompanying press release speak of four charges the Board was tasked with executing as described in the Pretrial Fairness Act:

1. Identify existing pretrial data collection processes in local jurisdictions; 
2. Define, gather, and maintain records of pretrial data from applicable criminal system agencies;
3. Identify resources necessary to systematically collect and report data as defined in the Pretrial Fairness Act; and
4. Develop a plan to implement processes sufficient to collect data as defined in the Pretrial Fairness Act (starting July 1, 2022).

The Board identified that prior to the passage of the SAFE-T Act, the Supreme Court had convened a Data Subcommittee to begin to tackle these goals. The Data Subcommittee had already identified existing pretrial data collection processes in twelve jurisdictions around the state prior to the Pretrial Data Board’s convening. 

Unfortunately, the report reveals that the Board has made little progress on its fulfillment of the remaining three goals. The Board’s report frequently reiterates the challenges encountered by the Data Subcommittee, highlighting a combination of barriers that continue to limit progress toward the acquisition of quality data ranging from rudimentary information storage methods to a lack of dedicated IT specialists. Although the discussion of current data collection processes in local jurisdictions paints a helpful picture of Illinois’ circuit courts’ disjointed and antiquated pretrial data collection practices and systems, the report is rife with ambiguous language about what is needed to correct these issues and ultimately stops short of offering clear solutions and next steps. 

Proper enforcement of the Pretrial Fairness Act is necessary to create a less harmful  pretrial system and reduce unnecessary contact with jails and detention centers. But proper enforcement and implementation hinges on transparent access to pretrial data collected statewide. Although the Board assures its audience that it “recognizes how critical quality data collection is to further transparency, informed policy decision-making, and meaningful criminal justice system analysis,” the collection of data from statewide pretrial systems has not begun, despite statutory requirements. 

The report states that the collection of county-level data is hampered “by the many data infrastructure and funding limitations listed,” but not once throughout the report are these funding limitations specifically explained. The report does attempt to cover aspects of a multi-step plan designed to guide the implementation of data collection and reporting processes; it even explains, “the AOIC has already begun inputting historical, aggregate data into the reporting platform, which provides some capacity for longitudinal analyses,” but readers are left wondering how that data entry process is unfolding, what historical, aggregate data the report is referring to, and which reporting platform is being referenced. As with the report’s entire description of the Board’s multi-step plan, this brief explanation of current data entry and integration activities elicits far more questions than answers. 

It is understandable that centralizing data from over 100 counties on people moving through the pretrial system is a daunting and complicated task. Still, the AOIC and its Board hardly provide legislators or the public with even a rough understanding of what can be done to support their efforts. Perhaps a visualization of this “multi-step plan” – or even case-study estimates of the financial support needed to minimize costs counties will incur – could be useful in aiding them in their work; at the very least, perhaps, it could help elected officials and advocates better understand how the Board came to the conclusion that a revised date of July 1, 2023 would be any more suitable than May 1 of that same year. 

Without clarity, and without the means to submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Illinois courts to gain that clarity, the implementation of the Pretrial Fairness Act will be compromised. With Veto Session looming on the horizon for the 102nd General Assembly, this creates two critical and urgent issues of concern. First, the Board’s reluctance to share any pretrial county-level data the AOIC has collected thus far will make it harder to understand the potential impact of the Pretrial Fairness Act on countries and successfully provide support to local governments. Second, opponents of the legislation will likely try to use the lack of available county-level data from pretrial systems as evidence of the Pretrial Fairness Act’s supposed ineffectiveness. Without data, implementation of the Pretrial Fairness Act is knee-capped. Not only does this threaten chances of success for those wishing to pass amendments that would improve fairness and equity in pretrial systems, but it also aids opponents of the Pretrial Fairness Act seeking to undermine it. 

Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts urges the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts and the Pretrial Data Board to continue to convene the Board monthly rather than quarterly. The Board’s work is far from over, and Illinois needs a public body intensely focused on data collection surrounding the Pretrial Fairness Act. We also urge that the AOIC work to estimate the costs of updating and standardizing data systems. Without an estimate, legislators’ hands are tied in their efforts to properly financially support the changes the Pretrial Fairness Act will make to county systems. If AOIC lacks the ability to determine these costs themselves, they should contract with an outside group that can, and provide the legislature and the public with a cost estimate for that work.