In 1999-2000, the National Parole Board (NPR) requested the Canadian Criminal Justice Association (CCJA) to aid in developing a national forum where Canadians could express their views on the parole process. This included their fears and apprehension, their questions and concerns, and their suggestions. It was an opportunity for discussion in making the parole process clearer, better understood, and more effective and responsive to the concerns voiced by Canadian citizens. Since there seems to be no such interactive and in-depth survey of public opinion conducted in the United States, implications will be drawn from this forum for American practitioners and policymakers. The forum consisting of 12 meetings was held across Canada in 2000 in the urban centers of Victoria, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Hull, Moncton, and Halifax. Out of 900 potential participants, 497 were selected. Discussions in the meetings covered social issues, such as crime prevention, youth justice, poverty, and more specific issues, such as goals and objectives of parole, forms of release and eligibility dates, and the risk assessment process. These discussions emphasized the outcomes of release decisions, the rates of success and re-offending, the complexities of decision-making, the importance of effective treatment programs, and the scope of offender supervision in the community. Several common themes emerged from the meetings ranging from individuals’ curiosity about the appointment process for parole board members, interest in the types of programs available to offenders within the institution and the community, to the majority of participants’ concern on how victims are treated in the criminal justice system. Key perspectives identified by participants included: (1) the extent of public misinformation about parole; (2) the need for public information programs; (3) the lack of unanimity about parole; (4) parole is primarily about determining whether someone can safely be reintegrated into society; (5) the importance of a case-by-case approach; (6) the importance of community support and involvement; and (6) the imbalance in public funding for incarceration instead of prevention. Recommendations by the participants are presented. Participants unanimously expressed the value of the meetings. The meetings suggest that such meetings could play a more vital and continued presence in the administration of criminal justice. If organized effectively, they can openly inform and capture the thoughts and concerns of people affected by the consequences of parole work.