SURVEY RESPONDENTS INCLUDED POLICE, PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS, JUDGES, CORRECTIONAL STAFF, PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS, PROBATION AND POLICE OFFICERS, AND MEMBERS OF A CITIZENS' COUNCIL. FOR EACH ITEM, RESPONDENTS INDICATED THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE DIRECTION (SUCCESS OR FAILURE) AND DEGREE OF PREDICTIVE POWER. THEIR RESPONSES WERE ANALYZED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS OF EACH ITEM. WHILE THERE HAS BEEN SOME LAG IN THE FORMAL USE OF PAROLE PREDICTION INSTRUMENTS, THERE APPEARS TO BE CONSIDERABLE CONGRUENCE AMONG THEORY, RESEARCH, AND PERCEPTION FOR CERTAIN PREDICTION ITEMS, PARTICULARLY THOSE DERIVED FROM DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY. ALTHOUGH THERE WERE MANY INSTANCES OF MISTAKEN PERCEPTIONS, MORE ITEMS WERE CORRECTLY PERCEIVED THAN WERE INCORRECTLY PERCEIVED. PERCEPTUAL ERRORS GENERALLY WERE A MATTER OF DEGREE RATHER THAN DIRECTION. IN ONLY TWO INSTANCES (ITEMS HAVING TO DO WITH SEX OFFENDERS) DID RESPONDENTS PERCEIVE ITEMS TO PREDICT THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY ARE INTENDED TO PREDICT. PERCEPTUAL ACCURACY APPEARS TO VARY DIRECTLY WITH AND CONTACT WITH JUDGES AND PAROLE OFFICERS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CRIMINAL JUSTICE PERSONNEL EXAGGERATE THE PREDICTIVE POWERS OF THE ITEMS TESTED. THE GREATEST CONFLICT CENTERS ON ITEMS DRAWN FROM A LEGALISTIC TRADITION AND INVOLVING THE CRIMES OF HOMICIDE AND RAPE. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS FOR PAROLE PREDICTION AND FOR EDUCATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PERSONNEL ARE CONSIDERED. SUPPORTING DATA ARE INCLUDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)