Parole board members make two types of decisions about parole: individual case decisions and paroling policy decisions. The latter set the framework within which the former are made. Paroling policy decisions generally are not explicitly stated. The lack of clearly articulated policy guidelines has resulted in considerable criticism of parole board decision-making practices. This report describes a study being conducted in collaboration with the parole board members of the Youth Correction Division of the United States Board of Parole. The aim is to provide a feed back device capable of making more explicit the presently implicit policies used in making case decisions. A feedback device of this type may enable parole board members to: compare actual poli cies with those desired and take corrective action if indicated, reduce disparity in individual case decision-making by noting deci sions which appear to vary substantially from usual practice, and reduce the criticism leveled against the parole board as having unfettered discretion. The relationships between decision-makers' evaluations of four specific case factors (severity of the offense, institutional program participation, institutional discipline, and chances of favorable parole outcome) and paroling decisions are studied. From these relationships, a method of describing and articulating implicit paroling policy is demonstrated; and preliminary results concerning the relative weights given to the above factors in practice are described.