PROGRAM OBJECTIVES FOR THE GRANTEES WERE TO ENCOURAGE STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES TO GENERATE AND USE EVALUATION INFORMATION AND TO TEST WAYS IN WHICH EFFECTIVE USE OF EVALUATION INFORMATION CAN HELP STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES. THESE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS REFER TO MEP'S BY THE ALAMEDA, CALIF., REGIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING BOARD, THE PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR'S JUSTICE COMMISSION, THE COLUMBIA, S.C., CENTRAL MIDLANDS REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, THE JACKSONVILLE, FLA., OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING, THE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA GOVERNMENTS, THE VENTURA, CALIF., CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING BOARD, THE MICHIGAN OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS, AND THE ILLINOIS LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION. INFORMATION IS PRESENTED ON EVALUATION SYSTEMS DESIGN AND RATIONALE, STRATEGIES, EXPECTATIONS, EXPERIENCES, AND OUTCOMES. SOME GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ARE (1) WITHOUT PLANNED, WELL-MANAGED PROCESSING PROCEDURES, HIGH VOLUME DATA SYSTEMS QUICKLY BECOME UNMANAGEABLE; (2) QUALITY CONTROL AND DATA ANALYSIS ARE EXPENSIVE; (3) STANDARD SYSTEMS ARE FEASIBLE BUT EXPENSIVE; (4) USER OWNERSHIP OF THE SYSTEM CAN FACILITATE SUCCESS (AS IN THE VENTURA SYSTEM); (5) EFFECTIVE USE OF THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK MAY REQUIRE ITS USE IN THE PROJECT DESIGN; (6) INFORMATION USERS SHOULD BE PRESENTED EVALUATION RESULTS VERBALLY OR IN WRITTEN SUMMARY FORM, AS WELL AS IN FULL REPORTS, AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESULTS; (7) DATA AND RECORDKEEPING ACTIVITIES OF MOST LOCAL AGENCIES ARE NOT ADEQUATE FOR AN EVALUATION SYSTEM: (8) STAFFING PROBLEMS, LACK OF PRODUCTION COMMITMENT, AND DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT CAN RESULT IN SYSTEM FAILURE (AS IN THE PENNSYLVANIA MEP); AND (9) ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMITTEE OF LOCAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE REPRESENTATIVES TO FOLLOW THE STUDY CAN BE HELPFUL (AS PROVEN IN THE ALAMEDA STUDY). FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SEE NCJ-55682.