EVALUATION OF PUBLIC PROGRAMS IS DEPENDENT UPON FEEDBACK FROM PROGRAM CLIENTS. THOUGH BEST PERFORMED BY CITIZENS THEMSELVES, EVALUATION OF CLIENT SATISFACTION IS OFTEN INDIRECTLY ENTERED INTO PROFESSIONAL EVALUATIONS ON A CLIENT SATISFACTION SCALE. THREE TYPES OF PROFESSIONAL EVALUATIONS FAIL TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST. SELF-EVALUATIONS BY PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS ARE BIASED AND GUIDED BY PERSONAL INTEREST. EVALUATIONS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF GENERAL KNOWLEDGE ARE NOT GEARED TO PRACTICAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS. THE ADVERSARY SYSTEM, IN WHICH AN EVALUATOR IS HIRED MUCH LIKE A LAWYER, IS PUBLICLY UNACCEPTABLE ON THEORETICAL GROUNDS. PROVIDER-MONOPOLIZED EVALUATION SYSTEMS SLIGHT THREE IMPORTANT CITIZEN INTERESTS: THE CONSUMERS BEING SERVED, THE TAXPAYERS SEEKING ECONOMY, AND THE COMMUNITY CARETAKERS, INCLUDING FAMILY, NEIGHBORS, WORKERS, AND INDUSTRIES, BEING AFFECTED. CITIZENS' ROLE IN EVALUATION IS A MEANINGFUL WAY TO ATTRACT PUBLIC AND MEDIA ATTENTION AND THUS FORCE PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS. THE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER AMENDMENTS OF 1975 IMPOSED EXTENSIVE EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING REVIEWER ROLES FOR CITIZENS. SEVEN FIELD TESTS OF CITIZEN EVALUATION SHOW, FOR THE MOST PART, THAT CONSUMER EVALUATIVE RESEARCH IS POSSIBLE AND CAN BE ADVANTAGEOUS. A SERIES OF PROCEDURES CAN PROMOTE EFFECTIVENESS OF CITIZENS' EVALUATIONS. THESE INCLUDE A FOCUS ON SERVICE NEEDS, DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY LINKAGES TO SUPPORT ACTION ON EVALUATION'S RESULTS AND PUT PUBLIC PRESSURE ON ORGANIZATIONS AND FOLLOWUP INQUIRIES TO ENSURE USE OF EVALUATION RESULTS. FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS ALREADY POSSESS MUCH INFORMATION THAT COULD PROVE USEFUL TO CITIZEN EVALUATORS ASSESSING THEIR PROJECT IN COMPARATIVE TERMS. PROGRAM EVALUATION SHOULD BE USED BY CITIZENS AS A TOOL FOR PROGRAM CONTROL. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (MRK)