Using a question-and-answer format, this section addresses questions and concerns about the role of institutional review boards (IRBs) in monitoring the treatment of human participants in evaluation. According to the American Evaluation Associations Guiding Principles for Evaluators, Evaluators should abide by current professional ethics, standards, and regulations regarding risks, harms, and burdens that might befall those participating in the evaluation; regarding informed consent for participation in evaluation; and regarding informing participants and clients about the scope and limits of confidentiality (for the full text, see http://www.eval.org/Guiding%20Principles.htm). Focusing on IRBs is important because evaluators receive varying levels of training in the regulations guiding ethical practice. In addition, evaluators have had disparate experiences with IRBs, ranging from being told that their work is exempt from review to receiving the same level of scrutiny that medical research receives. As academic institutions face increased scrutiny about their adherence to regulatory guidelines, many are becoming more vigilant (and authoritarian) about the behavior of institutional members.