Eleven years ago, this author became the director of the Idaho State Legislature's Office of Performance Evaluations. As only the second person in that role, he considered the office and its function to be still evolving and because he understood legislative leadership to be interested in seeing evaluation work that could actually "inform" policy making and budget decisions. However, this opportunity also came with challenges, as there was no prescriptive framework for how to conduct evaluations that policy makers would use. He developed a strategy that would help his office conduct useful evaluations. The strategy was to maximize both the office's responsiveness to and independence from evaluation sponsors and stakeholders (Mohan & Sullivan, 2006). Responsiveness is a tricky business for evaluators working in public policy environments. It goes beyond just conducting evaluations and issuing reports for sponsors and stakeholders. Being responsive also involves promoting (and sometimes defending) your approaches, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations to sponsors and stakeholders who often have competing or conflicting interests. This act of promoting and defending all aspects of evaluation work by evaluators and evaluation organizations is what the author calls evaluator advocacy, and the purpose of this advocacy is to increase evaluation use.