THE FINDNG WAS THE RESULT OF RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY A PRIVATE, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION FOUNDED IN THE WAKE OF THE ATTICA UPRISING. THE CRITIQUE FOCUSES ON THE ORGANIZATION'S SUMMARY REPORT, WHICH CONCLUDES THE FOLLOWING: (1) THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE THAT THE PAROLE BOARD REDUCES SENTENCE DISPARITIES; (2) NEITHER A PAROLE BOARD NOR A PAROLE OFFICER CAN PREDICT THE NATURE AND LIKELIHOOD OF RECIDIVISM FOR INMATES IN GENERAL; (3) RECIDIVISM CANNOT BE MEASURABLY REDUCED THROUGH SOCIAL PROGRAMS IN THE PRISON OR IN THE COMMUNITY; (4) PAROLE SUPERVISION DOES NOT PROVIDE COMMUNITY PROTECTION, AS INDICATED BY THE SMALL NUMBER OF PAROLEES FOR WHOM REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED PRIOR TO APPREHENSION FOR A NEW OFFENSE; AND (5) PAROLE IS COSTING THE STATE MONEY (I.E., IF PAROLED PERSONS WERE INSTEAD ABSOLUTELY DISCHARGED FROM PRISON, THE STATE WOULD SAVE MONEY). EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSUMPTIONS REFLECTED IN THESE CONCLUSIONS MAY NOT BE WARRANTED IS PRESENTED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE CITIZENS' INQUIRY WAS OF VALUE IN THAT IT IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS WITH PAROLE, BUT THAT ABOLISHING PAROLE IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEMS. FOR THE CITIZENS' INQUIRY SUMMARY REPORT, SEE NCJ-32385.