THE STATE PAROLE SYSTEM HAD BECOME THE FOCAL POINT FOR CRITICISM OF THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM'S FAILURE TO DEAL WITH THE RAPID INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF INMATES ADMITTED TO THE SYSTEM. SINCE THE PAROLE BOARD WAS THE SENTENCING AGENCY (WITH ULTIMATE POWER TO DETERMINE THE LENGTH OF SENTENCES) FOR ALL STATE FELONS, IT BECAME THE FOCUS OF CRITICISM BY INSTITUTION ADMINISTRATORS, WHO HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS INCREASED POPULATION, AND THE PUBLIC, WHICH WAS SHARPLY CRITICAL OF THE STATE'S FAILURE TO DEAL WITH THE GROWING CRIME PROBLEM. LACK OF FIRM RELEASE DATES FOR PRISONERS CREATED ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIERS TO MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR BOTH REHABILITATION PROGRAMS AND POPULATION MANAGEMENT. NEW APPOINTEES TO THE BOARD IN THE MID 1970'S RECOGNIZED THE PRESSING NEED FOR A MAJOR REEXAMINATION OF THE STATE SYSTEM AIMED AT ESTABLISHING FIRM RULES AND GUIDELINES. THE STATE LEGISLATURE RESPONDED BY PASSING LEGISLATION REQUIRING THE BOARD TO ESTABLISH RANGES FOR TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT WHICH MUST BE SERVED PRIOR TO PAROLE. THESE RANGES WERE TO BE DESIGNED TO REFLECT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CRIME AND TO EXACT THE PROPER LEVEL OF PUNISHMENT. THE BOARD WAS ALSO INSTRUCTED TO DEVELOP RULES STRUCTURING AND LIMITING THEIR DISCRETIONARY POWER IN VARYING FROM THESE RANGES. THESE REFORMS MINIMIZE SENTENCING DISPARITY BY IMPROVING COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION AMONG THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM'S COMPONENTS (THE BOARD, JUDGES, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICIALS). THE BOARD'S DEVELOPMENT OF THESE ADMINISTRATIVE RULES HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND MODIFIED BY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THE STATE HAS MADE MAJOR STRIDES IN ESTABLISHING A JUST AND HUMANE MODEL FOR PAROLE DECISIONMAKING. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (KCP)