THE PRIMARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ARTICLE IS THE NEED TO EXAMINE WAYS OF SOLVING PROBLEMS RESULTING FROM THE INEVITABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLITICS AND EVALUATION. EVALUATORS ARE NOT EMPLOYED JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE OBLIGATED TO EMPLOY THEM BY THEIR FUNDING AGENCY. PRESUMABLY, EVALUATORS ARE HIRED BECAUSE PERSONS WHO CREATE OR DIRECT FUNDING AGENCIES BELIEVE THAT EVALUATION WILL GENERATE CREDIBLE INFORMATION ON WHICH DECISIONS CAN, IN PART, BE BASED. MOST PROFESSIONS HAVE GENERAL GUIDELINES TO ASSIST THEIR MEMBERS IN DETERMINING APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL ARRANGEMENTS. THE ARTICLE ILLUSTRATES THE NEED FOR SIMILAR STANDARDS IN AT LEAST THREE AREAS: RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES, AUDIENCE RESTRICTIONS, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. REASONABLE CONTRACT STANDARDS CAN GO ONLY SO FAR IN SOLVING THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE ARTICLE. STANDARDS FOR PERFORMANCE ARE ALSO INDICATED THAT INVOLVE INSTRUMENTATION AND SAMPLING, INTERPRETATION AND REPORTING, AND NONPERFORMANCE. BENEFITS THAT CAN EMERGE FROM THE GENERATION OF EVALUATION STANDARDS ARE DISCUSSED, AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. SEE NCJ-51600 (DEP)