DETERMINATE OR FIXED SENTENCING WOULD RENDER TRADITIONAL PAROLE BOARDS UNNECESSARY IN THAT PRISONERS' RELEASE DATES WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PROGRESS AND PARTICIPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS. THE ACTUAL OR NEAR-ABOLITION OF PAROLE BOARDS IN CALIFORNIA, MAINE, AND INDIANA AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ADOPTING DETERMINATE SENTENCING IS DESCRIBED TO EXEMPLIFY WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN FIXED SENTENCING MODELS ARE FULLY IMPLEMENTED. FORMER ADVOCATES OF ABOLISHING PAROLE BOARDS THROUGH DETERMINATE SENTENCING PROCEDURES ARE RECONSIDERING AND FINDING USEFUL PURPOSES FOR THEM: AS RELEASE VALVES FOR OVERCROWDED PRISON POPULATIONS, AS TERM-SETTING AGENCIES WORKING WITHIN MAXIMUMS ESTABLISHED BY LEGISLATURES, OR AS SPONSORS OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS. MANY PAROLE BOARDS HAVE INSTITUTED INTERNAL REFORMS TO LIMIT PAROLE BOARD DISCRETION; IN 1976, THE COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION FOR CORRECTIONS ESTABLISHED A SET OF PAROLE BOARD STANDARDS, AND THE U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION WROTE INTO LAW IN 1974 FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR PAROLE DECISIONMAKING. OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION GOVERNING PAROLE BOARDS OR SENTENCING PRACTICES IS OUTLINED. MANY OBSERVERS FEEL THAT EVEN IF FLAT SENTENCING SYSTEMS ARE ESTABLISHED, PAROLE BOARDS WILL STILL BE NEEDED TO COUNTER PUBLIC OPINION BY MAKING JUDGMENTS ABOUT THE DANGEROUSNESS OF PARTICULAR OFFENDERS.