Program to Parole: Does Participation Open the Door?
Fiona E. Engstad, Patience A. Afifi, Maria F. Aguilar, Catherine C. Alvarado, Jacqueline Cruz, Zoe Guenther, Kaylin Monroe, Riley A. Quinn, Rikki K. Reel, Sonny Rios, Andrew Rogel, Hannah Schott, Shelby Vasallo
Department of Psychology
Faculty Supervisor: Amy E. Smith
This study investigates how rehabilitative programming influences parole board hearings for individuals serving life sentences in California. Although the default finding in a parole board hearing, by law, should be suitability (a grant of parole), the number of people actually granted parole is very low and rates have decreased recently (Garcia, 2026). At the same time, access to in-prison programming has increased (Chavez, 2026). This project examines the relationship between rehabilitative programming and successful parole determinations by analyzing the perceived value of these programs by Parole Board Commissioners in recent hearings. Using qualitative analysis of 50 parole board hearing transcripts from 2025, the study explores how parole board commissioners, attorneys, and individuals eligible for parole discuss in-prison programming and whether (and how) these discussions relate to suitability findings. Preliminary analyses suggest that a large percentage of the discussion during hearings is about programming, and participation is cited both to justify granting and denying parole. However, consistent engagement in programs alone rarely appears sufficient for a positive outcome, even as commissioners frequently recommend additional programming. Our study highlights potential contradictions in how rehabilitative efforts are evaluated and aims to inform future policy, implementation, and research.