Evaluation is very important in measuring the level of success of educational programs, and in determining the needed improvements of those programs. This study focuses upon providing both the criteria and method for evaluating the long-range planning function of state governing boards and coordinating commissions;In this study, the criteria for evaluating planning purposes, processes, product components, and outcomes were defined. Following the identification of the criteria, eight groups of advisors who are the constituents of planning, were asked to determine the importance of each criterion regarding planning purposes, product, and outcomes, and to indicate the level of participation various constituent groups should have in the planning process. The eight groups of advisors consisted of members of the Governors staff, state legislature, lay higher education governing boards and commission members, college presidents, public college administrators, private college administrators, college and university faculty members--all from Tennessee--and some higher education experts from outside the state of Tennessee;A pluralistic approach was used in the criteria evaluation and is recommended as the appropriate means for evaluating state-level planning. It is suggested that the public consumers or constituents of the plan should have the opportunity to formally scrutinize the plan, thereby contributing to its future improvement;In the criteria evaluation, it was concluded that no major difference existed among the advisory groups' ratings of the criteria; therefore, a consensus was reached by the advisory groups that all of the identified criteria were important in statewide planning. The advisors were also conclusive in determining that three of the criteria were most important in long range planning. These were: educational goal setting, funding prioritizing, and institutional role and mission statements. These three criteria are believed to provide the greatest challenge for state planners in the future;In regard to the planning process, the advisory groups' ratings provided a hierarchy for distinguishing the leaders in the planning process from those who shall be continuous advisors or limited participants. State coordinating staff was judged to be the leader in the developmental processes, lay board members and legislators in the decision-making and approval processes, and campus faculty and administrators in the implementation process;Finally, the criteria were used in developing an evaluation instrument that is designed to be administered to constituents of state plans for determining the value of the plan in serving its intended purposes; in containing the appropriate product components; achieving the desired outcomes; and in involving the appropriate participants in developing and implementing the plan.