Drs. Constantine’s and Nevarez’s letter has nothing to do with my article evaluating Get Real About Teen Pregnancy’s and the California Adolescent Health Collaborative’s Reality Check rankings of city services. They simply pulled a sentence out of the middle of the study, misrepresented it as the study’s conclusion even though it clearly was not, misattributed it to a method I clearly did not rely on, and completely ignored the multiple regression analysis I did rely on. Contrary to their claim, their letter did not in any way “replicate” my study’s method or finding that “the availability of these services is not associated with lower rates of or greater reductions over time in teenage birth rates.” First, Drs. Constantine and Nevarez complain that my conclusions are “flawed in several fundamental ways” because the Reality Check rankings, developed for “the explicit purposes of description and goal setting” cannot be used to assess teen birth rate outcomes. They should direct their complaint of misuse of the rankings not to me, but to Get Real and CAHC. Far from treating the Reality Check as merely for description and goal setting, Get Real and the CAHC (2004) released its rankings to the press and publicly credited Berkeley’s top ranking in services for the city’s supposedly having the state’s lowest rate of teen births (a double error, since Berkeley does not have the state’s lowest urban teen birth rate) (see Bender, 2004). My paper simply analyzed the public statements by these two groups (and others) linking their Reality Check rankings to teen birth rates according to the data they provided — data which I, like Drs. Constantine and Nevarez, found lacking for the use to which these groups applied it. Second, Drs. Constantine and Nevarez grossly misrepresent my study as having based its conclusions on raw Reality Check rankings unadjusted for city population size. They fabricate that charge by pulling a sentence from my description of Table 2, which reports that the simple, unadjusted correlation finds higher levels of services weakly associated with high rates of teen births. However, they fail to note my subsequent qualification: “This correlation is probably backwards; it more likely reflects the targeting of services toward low-income teens rather than a negative effect of services themselves” since “youth in cities with higher youth poverty rates have considerably more teen health services and youth development programs available than youth in more affluent cities.” I continue: “To isolate the effect of youth services, a stepwise multiple regression analysis examines their effect on teen birth rates (both level and change) when adult birth rates, economic variables such as poverty rates, and city population size are controlled” (page 50). The multiple regression explicitly controlled for city population size, a far more precise variable than the Reality Check’s broad quartile rankings (which place Los Angeles and Stockton in the same quartile).