This evaluation focused on issues related to program implementation of allied providers, therapists who were trained in a New Zealand–based program that has been operating for 89 years. There are many proponents and opponents of the notion that such allied providers—in some form—be trained, licensed, and deployed in the lower 48 states. These are policy issues that extend well beyond what we were tasked to perform in this evaluation. Advocates on both sides of the issue may find this narrow construction frustrating and incomplete, but the major contributors to this report spent countless hours debating the results of our study and the context in which it will be disseminated. We were not tasked with developing policy recommendations for wider implementation of this or some other allied- or mid-level-provider workforce model. The data provided in this evaluation can serve as a legitimate foundation by which others may draw and formulate their own inferences and recommendations. Our commitment has consistently been to provide the most accurate assessment available. This is the best and most informative role that this study can play in the current policy climate. Even with these cautionary notes, this study provides information on how therapists provide dental services across a range of practice circumstances, and how that provision is perceived by consumers of those services. These case studies will illuminate many of the issues facing a program whose implementation is still in its infancy; they will not answer all of the questions surrounding the use of “nontraditional” providers, but the findings from the case studies will hopefully contribute some useful observations to further inform the ongoing debate.