PART OF A SERIES OF UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS ON CURRENT TOPICS OF CONCERN TO THE EVALUATION COMMUNITY, THE FIRST ARTICLE DESCRIBES A COMPLEX EFFORT TO EVALUATE SEVEN SCHOOL DESEGREGATION PLANS IN LOS ANGELES. DISTRICT OFFICIALS, BOARD MEMBERS, PLAINTIFFS, AND INTERVENORS IN THE COURT CASE SUPPLIED WEIGHTS FOR THE EVALUATIVE DIMENSIONS OF A MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY ANALYSIS. THE PROBABLE PERFORMANCE FOR EACH PLAN ON EACH EVALUATIVE DIMENSION WAS JUDGED BY DISTRICT STAFF, AND AGGREGATE MEASURES OF BENEFITS AND OF BENEFIT/COST RATIOS WERE COMPUTED. THE EVALUATOR'S ETHICS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE DISCUSSED IN A SECOND ARTICLE WHICH DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN PROGRAM SPECIALISTS, ADMINISTRATORS, FUNDING AGENTS, THE PUBLIC, AND EVALUATION SPECIALISTS AND SUGGESTS THAT EVALUATORS SHOULD STRIVE TO SEPARATE THEIR FUNCTIONS AS DATA GATHERERS FROM THEIR VALUES CONCERNING A PARTICULAR SOCIAL AGENDA. IN ANOTHER PAPER, THE AUTHORS FOCUS ON DECISIONMAKING THAT FOLLOWS THE EVALUATION OF A SPECIFIED PROGRAM AND INTEGRATES EVALUATION INTO THE KNOWLEDGE UTILIZATION PROCESS. THE FINAL ARTICLE DISCUSSES THE PROS AND CONS OF INTERVENTION, ENUMERATES THE COSTS AND BENEFITS, AND SUGGESTS THAT THE ADVANTAGES OF INTERVENTION APPEAR POSITIVE WHEN THE TOOLS ARE AVAILABLE AND WHEN EVALUATORS ARE VIEWED AS POTENTIALLY HELPFUL. REFERENCES AND BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF THE AUTHORS ARE PROVIDED.