Intended for readers with little or no mathematical or technical training, this version of the technology of multiattribute utility measurement differs from that used by inventors and advocates of the approach. However, the difference is in detail rather than in spirit and result. Above all, an evaluation should be relevant. An evaluator must know the probable uses of the evaluation he is asked to undertake in order to make logical decisions. Reasons for evaluation of a program include the following: to find out how well it is doing to fine tune the program, to guide choices among major programmatic options, and to develop a summative evaluation. The basis of the multiattribute utility approach is the definition of evaluation to mean measurement of how well the thing being evaluated serves the values relevant to evaluating it. Measurements imply quantitative judgments; to measure how well something is doing means comparison. The author created the Simple Multiattribute Rating Technique in 10 steps, structured around the main concepts of scenario, value trees, and importance weighting, for which the author gives an everyday example unrelated to criminal justice or to criminology. The only example of a criminal justice-related evaluation available to the author is admittedly incomplete. The example refers to the community anticrime program evaluation, an LEAA-funded evaluation of the community anticrime program, in which the basic rating technique idea was used with innovations. To further illustrate the concept of multiattribute utility evaluation, examples from noncriminological areas are given, followed by a brief state-of-the-art review. Tabular and graphic data are provided, and 46 references are appended.