Passes for temporary absence have allowed inmates to be released into the community on the condition that they return to the institution in the evening. TAP's also encompass Community Resource Center (CRC's), which are residential facilities in the community contracted through private agencies, and Ministry Directed Work Programs (MDWP's), which include programs operating on institution premises but managed by private firms. In addition to studying program completion and recidivism, the study described and compared the background characteristics of inmates selected for each of the three programs. The sample consisted of 490 persons who received TA passes for employment or education during the first quarter of 1977 and were released before March 1978. After a 1-year followup period, recidivism data were collected. Main office files and computerized profiles were examined for each case in the sample. Failure rates were found to be notably higher among participants having any of the following characteristics: convictions prior to the present sentence; current incarceration period of at least 3 months; single or commonlaw marital status; probation or parole violations or escape convictions; unemployment at the time of incarceration or new employment positions while on TA.Those factors found to be related to recidivism were highly intercorrelated; i.e., those possessing any one of the stable factors related to reduced recidivism (older age, married status, first offense, employment) were also likely to possess the others. The MDWP's were similar to a rehabilitation model designed for long-term incarcerates, while CRC's and the institutional TA program focused on the reintegration of inmates into the community setting. These differences in orientation formed the basis of differences observed among participants in each program. Participant failure rates for TAP's and CRC's were 9.3 and 8.9 percent for each program respectively; reconviction rates were 18.1 and 20.9 percent respectively. Among inmates in the MDWP's, the failure rate was 26.3 percent and the reconviction rate was 48.4 percent. Rather than demonstrating program effectiveness differences, the relative outcomes were assumed to relect the observed differences in the types of inmates accepted into each program. Tabular data, references, and an appendix are provided.