The Wisconsin experience with the Mutual Agreement Program (contract parole) demonstrates that program planners and developers should be explicit about their goals, methods, and expected program outcomes. The program in Wisconsin failed because these three dimensions were not adequately forecast to meet the test of program evaluation. Evidence shows that the basic program goals were changed in 1974 when funds were sought from LEAA and again in 1977 when the program was included in the department's budget. When the program was evaluated in 1979, evidence showed that the Mutual Agreement Program was not as cost efficient as the regular parole board method of recommending parole release. The program was thus terminated because it was not cost effective in terms of producing shorter stays and curbing recidivism. However, the concept of contracting as an agent of planned change appears workable. Contracting could be implemented by existing staff without additional expenditures. A contract need not be more than a written statement of what an offender and the institution agree should be the goals for the offender's self-improvement and under what methods, timing, and conditions. Contracting for interested inmates does not necessarily require the direct involvement of the parole board or other specialized staff. Wisconsin policymakers have mistakenly discarded a useful concept on the basis of the failure of one effort to implement it. Efforts should be made to apply the concept under the traditional parole structure. Forms used in the Wisconsin program are appended, and six references are provided. (Author abstract modified)