OBJECTIVE This study examined the extent to which therapists who participated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of evidence-based treatments continued to use them with nonstudy clients after the trial as well as the types of treatment used and the reasons for their continued use. METHODS Semistructured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 38 therapists, three clinical supervisors, and eight clinic directors three months after an RCT of evidence-based treatments for depression, anxiety, and conduct disorders among children and adolescents. The therapists had been assigned randomly to one of three conditions: modular (N=15), allowing flexible use and informed adaptations of treatment components; standard (N=13), using full treatment manuals; and usual care (N=10). Grounded-theory analytic methods were used to analyze interview transcripts. RESULTS Twenty-six therapists (93%) assigned to the modular or standard condition used the treatments with nonstudy cases. Of those, 24 (92%) therapists, including all but two assigned to the standard condition, reported making some adaptation or modification, including using only some modules with all clients or all modules with some clients; changing the order or presentation of the modules to improve the flow or to work around more immediate issues; and using the modules with others, including youths with co-occurring disorders, youths who did not meet the age criteria, and adults. CONCLUSIONS The results provide insight into the likely sustainability of evidence-based treatments, help to explain why the outcomes of the RCT favored a modular approach, and highlight the strengths and limitations of use of evidence-based treatments.