Background information pertaining to vocational training of imprisoned felons was obtained from the literature and a field study during which 26 inmate students, 125 ex-inmates, 13 vocational instructors, 12 staff, 10 parole agents, job placement personnel, and 8 employers were surveyed. The study institution was a California medium security penitentiary whose 13 vocational training shops provided training for 11 percent of the 2,400 inmates in auto repair, cooking and baking, drafting, dry cleaning, electronics, landscaping, machine shop, shoe repair, upholstery, mill and cabinet, paint shop, sheet metal, and welding. The study found that present policies and procedures for selection of inmate students for enrollment in vocational training may result in selection of many men who are not likely to benefit from the training. Less than half of the offenders (46 percent of the inmates and 38 percent of the parolees) took training because they wanted to learn a trade. The majority (54 percent of the inmates and 62 percent of the parolees) were influenced to take training by pressure from adult authority in order to expedite parole, or because they wanted a pleasant way to serve their sentences. Some of those who wanted to learn a trade, and even some who did not, might have received greater benefits from training of their choice. From the number of ex-felons who found work in their trade but who could not hold these jobs (55 percent), it is concluded that the training is not suitable or adequate; from the number of ex-felons who never found work in their trade (68 percent), it is concluded that training was given for jobs of limited availability, such as for dry cleaning and landscaping. Although training was provided for some trades of higher skill level (such as electronics and drafting), skill requirements in industry were higher than skills taught. Recommendations include a review of vocational student selection policy, a central inmate employment agency listing job requirements, and flexible release dates. Over 100 references, 15 tables and 14 figures are provided. Appendixes contain standard measures for training effectiveness, miscellaneous recommendations and opinions sample, calculations, and related information.