COMPARISONS WERE DRAWN BETWEEN THE CHARACTERISTICS (CRIMINAL HISTORY, DOMESTIC CIRCUMSTANCES, EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS, SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND ATTITUDES IN PRISON) OF INMATES WHO WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE PRISON'S LOCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR REFERRAL TO THE NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD AND THOSE WHO WERE NOT RECOMMENDED, AND BETWEEN RECOMMENDED INMATES WHO WERE GRANTED PAROLE AND THOSE WHO WERE NOT. THE COMPARISONS WERE BASED ON REVIEWS OF PAROLE DOSSIERS AND ON OBSERVATIONS OF REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS. THE LOCAL COMMITTEE SEEMED TO BE INFLUENCED PRIMARILY BY ITS OWN ASSESSMENT, BASED MAINLY ON REPORTS BY PRISON STAFF, OF AN INMATE'S PERSONALITY AND ATTITUDES, LOOKING FOR SIGNS OF MATURITY AND POSITIVE CHANGE DURING INCARCERATION. A VIOLENT OFFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE AN INMATE'S RECEIVING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, ALTHOUGH FEWER MEN WITH CAREERS OF VIOLENCE WERE RECOMMENDED. IN SOME CASES, A STABLE MARRIAGE, EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS, AND GOOD WORK REPORTS CONTRIBUTED TO A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. OF THE 43 INMATES RECOMMENDED FAVORABLY BY THE LOCAL COMMITTEE, 23 WERE GRANTED PAROLE AND 20 WERE NOT. THE PAROLE BOARD APPEARED TO TO REFLECT THE LOCAL COMMITTEE'S SELECTION CRITERIA IN GENERAL, ALTHOUGH THE TWO BODIES DIFFERED IN DEGREE OF EMPHASIS ON CERTAIN FACTORS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE BOARD WAS MORE IMPRESSED THAN THE LOCAL COMMITTEE BY AN INMATE'S IMAGE AS A MODEL PRISONER AND SOMEWHAT MORE SKEPTICAL OF INMATES WHO HAD BEEN ACCEPTED MEMBERS OF THE PRISON SUBCULTURE. NEITHER DECISIONMAKING BODY LOOKED FAVORABLY UPON INMATES WHO COULD BE DESCRIBED AS SOCIAL ISOLATES OR LEADERS. A SPECIAL STUDY OF 30 INMATES WHO DECLINED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR PAROLE FOUND THAT THESE MEN TENDED TO BE SLIGHTLY OLDER THAN THE AVERAGE INMATE, TO HAVE EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORDS, NEVER TO HAVE BEEN MARRIED, TO HAVE ADJUSTED SUPERFICIALLY TO PRISON (FEW DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS OR POOR WORK REPORTS), BUT TO HAVE VERY POOR PLANS AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE. NO SUPPORTING DATA ARE INCLUDED. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS PROVIDED. (LKM)