AN ANALYSIS OF THE PAROLE SYSTEM FINDS THAT, PHILOSOPHICALLY, THE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM IS IN FAVOR OF GIVING EACH PRISONER REFUSED PAROLE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE REFUSAL. HOWEVER, THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL SYSTEM ALLOWS MANY REFUSALS TO BE MADE WITH NO FOLLOWUP. THUS, THE INMATE IS LEFT FRUSTRATED. ALSO, MANY PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE NOT DISCIPLINED THEMSELVES TO EXPRESS REASONS FOR THEIR DECISIONS. THE RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFIC PAROLE CRITERIA, A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF LOCAL REVIEW COMMITTEES (PART-TIME PAROLE BOARDS), AND GREATER COORDINATION AMONG ALL LEVELS OF THE PAROLE STRUCTURE. THE LOCAL COMMITTEES WOULD BE REPLACED BY REGIONAL PAROLE BOARDS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL INSTITUTIONS WITHIN AN EXISTING PRISON DISTRICT. THIS WOULD CENTRALIZE RECORDS, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SMALL LOCAL PANELS, CUT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE, ALLOW BETTER TRAINING OF MEMBERS, AND DECREASE THE POSSIBILITY THAT A BOARD'S DECISION WOULD NOT BE FULLY DOCUMENTED. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SOME MEMBERS COULD BE FULL-TIME. IT IS ARGUED THAT SAVINGS IN PRISON COSTS RESULTING FROM A GOOD PAROLE STRUCTURE COULD PAY FOR THIS INCREASED PROFESSIONALIZATION. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (GLR)