IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE PLANNING, MANAGEMENT, AND EVALUATION FUNCTIONS ARE USUALLY QUITE DISJOINTED. THIS LACK OF COOPERATION AND UNDERSTANDING CREATES A CLIMATE OF SUSPICION DETRIMENTAL TO BOTH EVALUATION AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT. FIVE POTENTIALLY BENEFICIAL SIDE EFFECTS FROM EVALUATION ARE DISCUSSED: (1) CLARIFICATION OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND VALUES; (2) CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF INHERITED IDEAS AND PROGRAM DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS; (3) IDENTIFICATION OF UNIQUE LOCAL OPERATING SITUATIONS; (4) ASSESSMENT OF THE FIT BETWEEN ACTUAL OPERATIONS AND PROGRAM DESIGN; AND (5) ASSESSMENT OF THE FIT BETWEEN PROGRAM CONCEPTS, OPERATING PATTERNS, AND KEY SOCIAL VALUES. TO ACHIEVE THESE BENEFITS, THE EVALUATORS, THE PROGRAM MANAGERS, THE OPERATING PERSONNEL, AND PLANNERS MUST WORK TOGETHER. CONTINUITY OF CONTACT IS URGED AT ALL STAGES OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS, ALTHOUGH ALL PARTIES MUST RECOGNIZE THE NEED OF THE EVALUATOR TO MAINTAIN INDEPENDENCE. ORGANIZATIONAL BALANCE MUST BE MAINTAINED BY APPOINTING PEOPLE FROM ALL LEVELS AND FROM ALL ORGANIZATIONAL SUBUNITS TO THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE. DATA DISTRIBUTION SHOULD ALSO BE BROAD. THE RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION SHOULD NOT BE CONFINED TO A FEW PERSONS AT THE TOP OF THE ORGANIZATION. THE EVALUATION TEAM SHOULD ALSO APPRECIATE THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF THE PROGRAM AND NOT BE CONCERNED SOLELY WITH TECHNICAL DATA. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (GLR)