Reply by the current author to the comments made by R. A. McWilliam, R. N. Roberts and Andy Gomm on the original article. All three commentaries are addressing a common theme that service coordination is not receiving the attention it deserves by state and local early intervention systems and programs. The responses contain a number of key points that expand upon the findings of the study presented in the article, as well as some of the other work at the Research and Training Center in Service Coordination. Gomm's article describes a number of critical system factors that contribute to a state model of service coordination such as the lead agency and structure of the system. McWilliam describes a number of early intervention system issues that revolve around service coordination. We are in wholehearted agreement with his call for quality control. Roberts offers cogent research questions to examine further important characteristics of service coordination. In particular, he reminds us that service coordination is an ongoing process and not a static service provided to families. All respondents acknowledged that the field must attend to practices, both in regard to the range of service coordination activities and as related to outcomes. (Contains 3 footnotes.)