IN MASSACHUSETTS AREA BOARDS OF ALL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IN A REGION MUST PASS ON ALL TRANSFERS OF OFFENDERS AMONG INSTITUTIONS. MORE THAN 150 DISCRETE VARIABLES THAT MIGHT ENTER INTO SUCH A DECISION WERE ANALYZED IN A 50 PERCENT RANDOM SAMPLE DRAWN FROM ALL CASES THAT APPEARED BEFORE AN AREA BOARD BETWEEN JULY 1977 AND JANUARY 1978. PROFILES FOUND THAT MEN RECOMMENDED FOR LOWER SECURITY WERE APT TO HAVE ADJUSTED MORE FULLY TO INCARCERATION, DISPLAYING (IN THE BOARD'S OPINION) BETTER ATTITUDES AND GREATER MOTIVATION. THESE MEN ALSO TENDED TO BE FURTHER FROM PAROLE ELIGIBILITY AND TO HAVE MORE EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY LINKAGES. THE CONVERSE WAS FOUND FOR MENEITHER DENIED TRANSFER TO A LOWER-SECURITY INSTITUTION OR RECOMMENDED FOR HIGHERSECURITY PLACEMENT. BECAUSE AREA BOARDS DO NOT RECORD THEIR RATIONALE FOR EACH DECISION, THE REASONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DENIALS CANNOT BE STATED WITH CERTAINTY. RATIONALES USUALLY ACCOMPANY ONLY APPROVALS. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A RATIONALE BECOME PART OF THE INMATE'SRECORD REGARDLESS OF BOARD ACTION AND THAT THESE RATIONALES BE CONSIDERED DURING THE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CENTRAL OFFICE. AREA BOARDS ARE ALSO URGED TO GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO PROGRAM NEEDS IN MAKING DECISIONS. STUDY STATISTICS ARE PRESENTED IN BOTH TABULAR AND NARRATIVE FORM. APPENDIXES INCLUDE RESEARCH VARIABLES, APPROVAL RATES, AND AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.