THE MORRISSEY DECISION HELD THAT PAROLE COULD NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED A MATTER OF 'GRACE' WHICH THE STATE COULD REVOKE AT WILL. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE INMATE MUST BE GIVEN AN 'ORDERLY PROCESS' BEFORE PAROLE MAY BE REVOKED, SUCH AS PRELIMINARY HEARINGS TO DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE AND REVOCATION HEARINGS. SURVEY RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED FROM FORTY STATES, INCLUDING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. IT WAS FOUND THAT IF THE STATES APPLY THEIR REGULATIONS AS WRITTEN, MOST APPEAR TO BE IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF MORRISSEY. THE MOST COMMON VARIATIONS FOUND CONCERNED WHETHER WITNESSES MAY BE SUBPOENAED AND PLACED UNDER OATH. ALTHOUGH MORRISSEY DID NOT MENTION EITHER OF THESE REQUIREMENTS, SIX OF THE RESPONDING STATES NOW ALLOW A PAROLEE TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR WITNESSES AT A REVOCATION HEARING, AND FIVE STATES PROVIDE FOR TESTIMONY TO BE GIVEN UNDER OATH. THE REMAINDER OF THE RESPONDING STATES ALLOW VOLUNTARY WITNESSES AND UNSWORN TESTIMONY. INNOVATIVE STEPS TAKEN IN PARTICULAR STATES ARE BRIEFLY DESCRIBED. LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREAS OF BAIL PENDING REVOCATION, REVOCATION FOLLOWING ACQUITTAL OF CRIMINAL CHARGES, AND RIGHT TO COUNSEL ARE ALSO DISCUSSED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)