THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE STUDY WAS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT IMPROVED PROCEDURES FOR MAKING PAROLE DECISIONS. IT WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE PAROLING AUTHORITIES WITH ASSISTANCE IN MAKING BOTH INDIVIDUAL CASE DECISIONS AND GENERAL POLICY DECISIONS. RESEARCHERS SOUGHT TO DEVELOP RELATIVELY SIMPLE GUIDELINES; THEY DID NOT INTEND TO SET FORTH DEFINITIVE STANDARDS, PRINCIPLES, OR POLICY. THE EVOLUTIONARY NATURE OF THE GUIDELINE MODELS TO BE DEVELOPED WAS EMPHASIZED. EACH OF THE SEVEN COLLABORATING JURISDICTIONS DEVELOPED A GUIDELINE MODEL AND MADE SOME PROGRESS TOWARD ITS IMPLEMENTATION, ALTHOUGH THE PROCESS IS NOT YET COMPLETE IN ANY OF THE JURISDICTIONS. TWO GENERAL TYPES OF GUIDELINE MODELS WERE DEVELOPED: SEQUENTIAL AND MATRIX. IN THE SEQUENTIAL MODELS, A SERIES OF DECISION RULES IS DEFINED ON THE BASIS OF A SORTING PROCEDURE: SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF THE OFFENDER'S SITUATION (E.G., INSTITUTIONAL DISCIPLINE OR PRIOR RECORD) ARE EVALUATED SUCCESSIVELY TO ELIMINATE CANDIDATES FOR PAROLE. MATRIX MODELS ARE BASED ON IDENTIFICATION OF TWO OR MORE GENERAL DIMENSIONS OF CONCERN, SUCH AS SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE AND RISK OF RECIDIVISM; FOR ANY COMBINATION OF CLASSIFICATIONS ON THESE DIMENSIONS, A GRID IDENTIFIES A RANGE OF EXPECTED DECISIONS. SEQUENTIAL MODELS WERE DEVELOPED WITH THE HELP OF THE PAROLING AUTHORITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA, VIRGINIA, LOUISIANA, AND MISSOURI, WHILE CALIFORNIA, WASHINGTON, AND NEW JERSEY AUTHORITIES DEVELOPED MATRIX MODELS. THE PROCESS BY WHICH EACH STATE DEVELOPED ITS GUIDELINE MODEL IS DESCRIBED, INCLUDING BACKGROUND DESCRIPTIONS OF (1) THE STATE PAROLE AUTHORITY STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURE; (2) THE DIFFERENT PHASES OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS; AND (3) DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY GUIDELINES. EACH SECTION ALSO CONTAINS COPIES OF METHODS, THE GUIDELINE MODEL, CASE EVALUATION FORMS, HEARING GUIDELINES, CLASSIFICATION TABLES, AND OTHER GUIDES DEVELOPED BY THE STATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS SUPPORTING DATA. GENERAL GUIDANCE IS THEN OFFERED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES BY ANY STATE, BASED ON THE EXPERIENCES OF THE JURISDICTIONS PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY. A FINAL CHAPTER DISCUSSES DIFFERING DECISION MODELS, ALONG WITH SOME MORAL ISSUS THAT ARISE FROM THE RESULTS OF THIS PROJECT. THE STUDY'S MAIN CONCLUSIONS ARE THAT (1) PAROLE GUIDELINES ARE FEASIBLE FOR DIFFERING JURISDICTIONS AND MAY BE DEVELOPED USING A VARIETY OF METHODS, AND (2) THE GUIDELINE MODEL PROVIDES A BASIS FOR POLICY CONTROL AS WELL AS FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF BOARD POLICY. APPENDIXES PROVIDE A SUMMARY REPORT OF A COMPARISON OF COMMONLY USED PAROLE PREDICTION METHODS, A DESCRIPTION OF A PROMISING CLASSIFICATION METHOD FOR PAROLE PREDICTION RESEARCH, A DESCRIPTION OF A RELATED GUIDELINES STUDY DONE FOR THE MINNESOTA PAROLING AUTHORITY, AND COPIES OF THE CASE EVALUATION FORMS FOR EACH OF THE SEVEN STATES. (VDA)