THE STUDY OF THE DHEW COMMITTEE SUGGESTED A NEED FOR A COHERENT METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK WITHIN WHICH TO EVALUATE PUBLIC PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT. THE ISSUES SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH A FRAMEWORK ARE DISCUSSED. THREE STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH PROBLEMS THAT REQUIRE THE ATTENTION OF MORE THAN ONE ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENT ARE IDENTIFIED: STRONG CENTRAL AUTHORITY, IN WHICH ONE ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT IS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO COORDINATE THE EFFORTS OF SEVERAL UNITS; THE INTRAORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE, IN WHICH A COOPERATIVE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE IS ESTABLISHED TO CUT ACROSS THE EXISTING DIVISION OF LABOR; AND THE 'SUPERAGENCY,' INVOLVING A REORGANIZATION OF THE DIVISION OF LABOR WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE SO THAT ALL FUNCTIONS RELATED TO THE NEW PROBLEM ARE CENTRALIZED IN ONE NEW COMPONENT. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF EACH STRATEGY ARE POINTED OUT. WITHIN THIS FRAMEWORK, THE PROGRESS OF THE DHEW INTRADEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE IS ASSISSED, AND CONCLUSIONS ARE DRAWN REGARDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE. THE MOST STRIKING WEAKNESS OF THE COMMITTEE IS SAID TO BE THE LACK OF ANY CENTRAL PLANNING MECHANISM. OTHER PROBLEM AREAS INCLUDE INADEQUATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND POOR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATORS AND TECHNICAL PERSONNEL. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING THE INTRADEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE STRATEGY ARE OFFERED IN LIGHT OF THE RECOGNITION THAT THIS STRATEGY IS THE MOST LIKELY TO BE CHOSEN WHENEVER A PROBLEM CUTS ACROSS AGENCY LINES.