THIS ANALYSIS FOCUSES ON THE INTERRELATED NATURE OF CORRECTIONS, PROBATION, AND PAROLE. THE SECTION ON PAROLE DECISIONMAKING EXAMINES THE PROCESS USED IN LOUISIANA, PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS SPELLED OUT BY STATE AND U.S. SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL DECISIONS, AND FACTORS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED IN A PAROLE APPLICATION. THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF PAROLE ARE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL AND NUMEROUS STUDIES AND CRITIQUES ARE CITED TO SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE POINTS OF VIEW. FOUR POTENTIAL REFORM MODELS ARE DESCRIBED: A MODIFICATION OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM, A HYBRID NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION AND MODIFIED MODEL PENAL CODE MODEL, THE OREGON PLAN, AND THE JUDICIAL MODEL. THE DUTIES OF THE PROBATION-PAROLE OFFICER ARE ALSO EXAMINED INTENSIVELY. THE CASE FOR PROBATION IS ARGUED, POINTING OUT THAT IT COSTS FAR LESS TO MAINTAIN A PERSON ON PROBATION THAN IN A CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION. STUDIES ARE CITED WHICH SHOW THAT RECIDIVISM RATES FOR PAROLE AND PROBATION ARE SIMILAR. PROBATION AND PAROLE SUPERVISION AS A FORM OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IS DISCUSSED. THE REASONS FOR SUPERVISION, THE DURATION OF THE PERIOD OF SUPERVISION, AND PROBLEMS WHICH ARISE ARE ALSO EXAMINED. WAYS TO USE COMMUNITY RESOURCES TO AUGMENT SERVICES ARE DISCUSSED. APPENDIXES INCLUDE EXTENSIVE FOOTNOTES FOR EACH CHAPTER, REFERENCES, A GLOSSARY, A SAMPLE STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PAROLE DENIAL, A SAMPLE PAROLE BOARD DECISION FORM, RESPONSES TO A STATE-BY-STATE SURVEY ON THE ROLE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AT PAROLE RELEASE HEARINGS, AND LOUISIANA PAROLE GUIDELINES. (GLR)