In recent years an increased stress has been placed on the evaluation of mental health, education, and welfare service programs. The majority of studies readily available to most evaluators represent local project evaluations which usually contain diverse references to different aspects of the evaluative process. For evaluative results to be even minimally useful to other projects, however, certain requirements must be met. These are: (1) internal validity, (2) external validity, (3) specification of the population and treatment being implemented, and (4) standardization of indicators of treatment impact. To determine the extent to which published project impact evaluations meet these criteria, a study was undertaken to "evaluate the evaluations" themselves within heroin addiction treatment programs. Six high-yield journals and 100 random sources were systematically searched for reports of evaluations which provided measures of success in terms of the consumer. Articles were analyzed in regard to our four prerequisites for cross-project comparisons regarding process variables, impact variables, and methodologies. It became clear, however, that our original objectives in evaluating either the usefulness of published project evaluations or testing any specific impact hypotheses were not achievable due to the state of evaluative measurement and reporting practices at this time. The major problems we eoncountered in our inability to complete a necessary and potentially fruitful comparative assessment of project evaluations are discussed in detail with recommendations for future work.