IN SEPTEMBER 1978, THE OFFICE DISTRIBUTED A TOTAL OF 400 INMATES GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE SURVEYS, 200 TO STAFF AND 200 TO INMATES. RESPONDENTS WERE CHOSEN RANDOMLY AND REMAINED ANONYMOUS. A TOTAL OF 63 PERCENT OF THE INMATE SAMPLE AND 56 PERCENT OF THE STAFF SAMPLE COMPLETED AND RETURNED SURVEYS. BOTH STAFF AND INMATE SURVEYS WERE COMPRISED OF 44 MULTIPLE CHOICE AND 2 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. SURVEYS WERE REVIEWED FOR SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES ON RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS, KNOWLEDGE OF THE INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, RATING OF THE PROCEDURE EFFECTIVENESS, AND CRITICISMS OF THE PROCEDURE. DATA WERE ANALYZED IN AN EFFORT TO LOCATE PROBLEMS IN THE PROCEDURE AND TO ISOLATE THOSE FACTORS WHICH COULD BE IMPROVED. THE DATA SHOWED THAT PRIOR TO INITIATION OF THE SURVEY, 97 PERCENT OF THE STAFF AND 91 PERCENT OF THE INMATES WERE AWARE THAT AN INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE EXISTED. STAFF AND INMATES DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY ON 22 OF 25 PARALLEL QUESTIONS, INDICATING DIVERSE PERCEPTIONS OF THE PROCEDURE. THE MOST CONCRETE PROBLEM IDENTIFIED BY THE QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNED THE METHOD BY WHICH INMATES ARE INFORMED OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. MOST STAFF FELT THAT INMATES LEARN OF THE PROCEDURE THROUGH THE ORIENTATION SESSION, WHILE INMATES MAINTAINED THAT OTHER INMATES INFORMED THEM OF ITS EXISTENCE. SIMILARLY, MANY INMATES WERE UNAWARE OF THE PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTING OR APPEALING A GRIEVANCE. MOREOVER, STAFF SAW THE PROCEDURE AS EFFECTIVE WHILE INMATES DID NOT. STAFF BELIEVED THAT THE PROCEDURE IMPROVED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INMATES AND STAFF MEMBERS; INMATES FELT THAT IT WORSENED RELATIONSHIPS. ALTHOUGH BOTH STAFF AND INMATES ACCEPTED THE PROCEDURE IN THEORY, INMATES TENDED TO PERCEIVE IT AS A PERVERTED SYSTEM WHICH DOES NOT PERFORM AS INTENDED. TABLES ARE PROVIDED. APPENDIXES PRESENT THE STAFF AND INMATE SURVEYS, STAFF AAND INMATE OPINIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE PROCEDURE, AND A GUIDELINE ON THE PROCEDURE. (LWM)