THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM SHOULD BE EVALUATED ACCORDING TO FIVE MEASUREMENT CRITERIA: (1) MEASUREMENT OF EFFORT IN TERMS OF COST, TIME, AND PERSONNEL; (2) MEASUREMENT OF PERFORMANCE IN TERMS OF PROGRAM GOALS, USING MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROGRAMMING (MAP), MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (MIS), AND SELF-EVALUATION; (3) DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE IN TERMS OF THE PROGRAM'S VALUE TO THE OFFENDER (TWO ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES IN A QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR AN OUTCOME ANALYSIS ARE RECOMMENDED: A BASE EXPECTANCY DESIGN AND A FOLLOWUP ANALYSIS OF A CONTEMPORARY COMPARISON GROUP); (4) DETERMINATION OF EFFICIENCY OF PERFORMANCE, TO ASCERTAIN WHICH PROGRAMS ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE; AND (5) STUDY OF PROCESS, TO IDENTIFY ATTRIBUTES OF THE PROGRAM RELATED TO SUCCESS OR FAILURE, THOSE WHO BENEFIT FROM THE PROGRAM, CONDITIONS WHICH AFFECT PROGRAM DELIVERY, AND EFFECTS PRODUCED BY THE PROGRAM. USING THESE GENERAL CRITERIA, DETAILED SUGGESTIONS FOR EVALUATIONAL METHODS AND PROCEDURES ARE PROVIDED; THE RATIONALE IS BASED ON INTERVIEWS WITH CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND STAFF, OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING ONSITE VISITS, AND DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE COMMUNTIY CORRECTION TASK FORCE. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMUNITY CORRECTION TASK FORCE RESEARCH STAFF AND OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS COLLABORATE ON THE EVALUATION. THE IN-HOUSE STAFF WOULD BE ASSIGNED THE FIRST FOUR SECTIONS OF THE EVALUATION DESIGN, WHILE THE OUTSIDE RESEARCH STAFF WOULD CONDUCT THE STUDY OF PROCESS. ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ARE SUGGESTED IN THE REPORT. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.