The Impact and Fidelity of the Structured Decision Making Framework (SDMF) In California Board of Parole Hearings (CBPH) Decisions

While California has one of the largest state incarceration rates in America, the state has recently observed the greatest increase in the use of parole nationwide (Carson, 2020; Oudekerk & Kaeble, 2021). The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether the implementation of a new guide, the SDMF (Serin, 2019), has led to differences in parole decisions in California. Retrospective reports and case files of parole applicants were rated using the SDMF to come to a new parole decision, which was then compared to the original California Board of Parole Hearings (CBPH) decisions to evaluate fidelity. Results showed that denial rates significantly differed between pre- and post-implementation. Furthermore, SDMF-based decisions and CBPH decisions did not significantly differ, except for low-risk cases, suggesting commissioners may be considering extraneous information. Furthermore, the SDMF as a whole significantly predicted CBPH grants, with Release Plan and offender risk individually predicting these decisions.