North Carolina's Support Our Students (SOS) evaluation report for school year...

              © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
This report would not have been possible without the cooperation of Dr.
Christopher Eaddy, Ms. Monnie McCracken, Ms. Tara Minter and Ms. Penny
Hinton of the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. Similarly, the evaluators would like to thank the exec -
utive directors, program directors, site coordinators, and other Support Our
Students staff members who worked many hours compiling demographic data
and other information for this report.
The evaluators would like to thank Dr. Gary Williamson and Dr. Helmuts
Feifs of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. Evaluators estimate
that collaboration with the NC Department of Public Instruction has saved at
least 6,000 hours that county program and school staff otherwise would have
spent collecting achievement data from individual schools or school systems.
The NC Department of Public Instruction's assistance enabled the evaluators to
obtain and analyze longitudinal End-of-Grade data for children in SOS pro -
grams in all counties. Results of these analyses have been used to better target
resources and improve programs. In addition to providing data that has helped
improve the program, the integrity and completeness of the data provide a high
level of accountability that has supported the sustainability of the SOS program.
Program directors have used evaluation results to attract other funds, and for
accountability to those funding agencies, more than doubling the number of dollars
for supporting North Carolina's children in after-school programs.
i
ii © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
EDSTAR included some graphics with most data outcomes,
to help clarify and enhance understanding of the data.
If the data represents a ‘snapshot’ of the 2002–2003 participants, we included
the following graphic:
If the data compares the SOS program in 2002–2003 with the program in 2000–2001,
with possibly different participants, we included the following graphic:
If the data compares 2002–2003 SOS participants to data for them in previous
years (longitudinal data for these students), we included the following graphic:
iii
iv © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................................i
GRAPHIC AIDS............................................................................................................................iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................3
PROGRAM MOTIVATION AND GOALS................................................................................................3
KEY PROGRAM STATISTICS ..............................................................................................................4
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001 ...........................................................................................5
NCLB & SOS...............................................................................................................................7
OVERVIEW OF MAJOR FINDINGS......................................................................................................7
Participant Demographics .......................................................................................................8
Student Perceptions and Behavior ...........................................................................................8
Proficiency and Grade Levels ..................................................................................................9
Financial Information ............................................................................................................10
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FOR NORTH CAROLINA..............................................................................11
OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION .................................................................................................13
GOALS AND METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................................15
RATIONALE FOR THE SOS PROGRAM.............................................................................................16
Adult Supervision ...................................................................................................................16
Academic Assistance ..............................................................................................................17
DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANTS......................................................................................................18
Racial Diversity......................................................................................................................19
Socio-Economic Diversity ......................................................................................................20
Home Living Situation............................................................................................................20
Academic Attributes of Participants and Their Parents ........................................................22
PROGRAM GOALS AND STRUCTURE..................................................................................25
PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................27
REFERRAL TO SOS........................................................................................................................29
CURRICULUM AND ACTIVITIES.......................................................................................................30
Academic Assistance ..............................................................................................................33
Computer Use.........................................................................................................................33
Behavior Modification............................................................................................................34
Field Trips ..............................................................................................................................35
STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS...............................................................................................................36
Number of Paid and Volunteer Staff ......................................................................................36
Student Perceptions of Staff and the SOS Program...............................................................36
PROGRAM FUNDING AND COST .....................................................................................................38
Continued
vi © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
COLLABORATION WITH OUTSIDE AGENCIES ..................................................................................39
EVALUATION OUTCOMES.......................................................................................................41
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS ..............................................................................................43
End-of-Grade Scores ..............................................................................................................43
EOG Score Improvement........................................................................................................43
Students Scoring at Grade-Level Proficiency ........................................................................43
Demographic Groups .............................................................................................................46
How Much Does SOS Help With Schoolwork?......................................................................46
BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES...............................................................................................................47
Changes in Participants’ Feelings Toward School ................................................................47
Suspension Data .....................................................................................................................48
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS..................................................................................................................48
RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................49
NOTES...........................................................................................................................................53
AUTHORS.....................................................................................................................................55
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 1
2 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
The Support Our Students (SOS) initiative is an effort by the state of North Carolina to encourage
quality after-school programs for students in both urban and rural communities. Administered by the
North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Support Our Students
awards grants in the $60,000 – $250,000 range to non-profit, 501(c)(3) organizations to run quali-ty
after-school programs for students, most of whom are in grades 6–8. Now in its tenth year of
operation, the state’s Support Our Students initiative was in 97 counties at the beginning of the
2002–2003 school year, and in 99 counties by the end of the year.
From September 2002 to June 2003, SOS programs across North Carolina served 15,190
students. In addition to serving participants during the school year, 69 counties provided services
to a statewide total of approximately 3,000 youngsters during the summer months or when students
in year-round schools were tracked out. In all, nearly 17,000 different students were served. This
is a marked decline from last year, when 81 counties served approximately 10,000 students in the
summer and 23,000 total. The decline in the number of children served was due to state budget cuts.
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
B a c k g ro u n d
P rogram Motivation and Goals
Even children of middle-school age require adult supervision and guidance. Many early teens in
North Carolina would have to fend for themselves after school if not for the SOS program or others
like it. When children are left to their own devices, they have a ten-dency
to make uninformed or poor decisions. Statistics indicate that
most juvenile crime is committed between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m., the hours immediately following students’ release from
school.1
In a study of six after-school programs in North Carolina, the
majority of study participants said that attending after-school programs
helped them stay out of trouble.2 Other studies show that children in
a f t e r-school programs are two times less likely to use drugs and one
third less likely to become teen parents. Teachers and parents report
that children who attend after-school programs also develop better social skills and handle con-
3
In a study of six
after-school programs
in North Carolina, the
majority of study par -
ticipants said that
attending after-school
programs helped them
stay out of trouble.2
flicts in more acceptable ways.3 Besides providing a safe haven for children, Support Our
Students gives them a place where they have opportunities to learn and grow.
The specific goals of the SOS initiative, as outlined in the 1994 Crime Control Prevention Act,
are as follows: to reduce juvenile crime, to reduce the number of young people who are unsupervised
after school; to improve the academic performance and the attitude and behavior of youth participants;
to meet the physical, intellectual, emotional, and social needs of young people; to involve community
volunteers; and to improve the coordination of existing resources and enhance collaboration
between agencies.4
Although these goals remained constant, SOS activities varied from county to county and from
site to site. SOS sites were given the autonomy to create programs based on what they determined
would benefit the students in their community. The programs are run by diverse groups, including
Boys and Girls’ Clubs, YMCA/YWCAs, faith-based groups, community councils, and school sys-tems.
During the 2002–2003 school year, all of the county programs offered homework assistance;
98% offered tutoring in math and English or reading; and 56% had a mentoring program.
4 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
During the 2002–2003 school year, data for 222 SOS sites in 97 counties showed they were
open a total of more than 186,000 hours. During the school year, 1246 staff members and over
800 volunteers provided services to more than 15,000 students. The number of sites has increased
steadily over the previous years, but declined about 10% this year due to reduction in funds
because of the budget cut.
Overall, 50% of SOS participants were in middle school (grades 6–8); 30% were high school
students; 20% were enrolled PreK-5. The average daily attendance for all 97 counties combined
was 7584 students.
Key Program Statistics
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 5
On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB Act) embodies four key principles: stronger
accountability for results, greater flexibility for states, school districts and schools in the use of
federal funds, more choices for parents of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and an
emphasis on teaching methods that have been demonstrated to work. The act also places an increased
emphasis on reading, enhancing the quality of our nation’s teachers, and ensuring that all children
in America’s schools learn English.
The NCLB Act is designed to help all students meet high academic standards by requiring that
states create annual assessments that measure what children know and can do in reading and math in
grades 3 through 8. Data will be sorted for students by poverty levels, race, ethnicities, disabilities, and
limited English proficiencies to ensure that no child – regardless of his or her background – is left
behind. The NCLB act also requires states to develop plans with annual measurable objectives that will
ensure that all teachers teaching in core academic subjects are highly qualified by the end of the
2005-2006 school year. Core academic subjects include English, reading or language arts, mathe-matics,
science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.
Districts and schools that do not make sufficient yearly progress toward state proficiency goals
for their students will initially be targeted for assistance and then be subject to corrective action
and ultimately restructuring. Schools that meet or exceed objectives will be eligible for “academic
achievement awards.” Parents with children in schools that fail to meet state standards for at least
two consecutive years may transfer their children to a better-performing public school, including a
public charter school, within their district. The district must provide transportation. Students from
low-income families in schools that fail to meet state standards for at least three years are eligible
to receive supplemental services – including tutoring, after-school services, and summer school.
The act also provides students the choice to attend a safe school within their district if they attend
persistently dangerous schools or are the victim of a violent crime while in their school.
In addition to the above accountability and assessment requirements under Title I, Part A, of the
NCLB Act, there are several other initiatives within the act that provide additional funding to ensure
that all aspects of education are properly supported and funded. Some of these initiatives include:
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
• Reading First (Title I, Part B, Subpart I): a funding source to provide instructional programs and
materials, assessments, and professional development grounded in scientifically based reading
research.
• Early Reading First (Title I, Part B, Subpart 2): a program to prepare young children to enter
kindergarten with the language, cognitive, and early reading skills necessary for reading success.
• William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy (Title I, Part B, Subpart 3): provides low-income
families with integrated literacy services for parents and their young children (ages
birth through 7) to break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy.
• Improving Literacy Through School Libraries (Title I, Part B, Subpart 4): providing children
with access to up-to-date school library materials, technologically advanced school library
media centers, and professionally certified school library media specialists.
• Education of Migratory Children (Title I, Part C): support high-quality and comprehensive
educational programs for migrant children to help reduce the educational disruptions and other
problems that result from repeated moves.
• Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or
At-Risk (Title I, Part D): provides financial assistance to educational programs for youths in state-operated
institutions or community day programs, as well as locally operated correctional facilities.
• Advanced Placement (Title I, Part G): designed to increase the number of low-income students
participating in AP classes and taking AP tests by helping to pay test fees for low-income
students in AP classes and expanding access to AP classes through increased teacher training
and other activities.
• School Dropout Prevention (Title I, Part H): assists schools with dropout rates above their state
average to implement effective dropout prevention and reentry efforts.
These are just a sample of many Title I initiatives funded through the NCLB Act. Each individual
initiative has set measurement criteria for compliance with the portion of the NCLB Act supporting the
funding of that initiative. Some of these criteria overlap with measurable objectives of Title I, Part
A, the core initiative to ensure a quality education to all children. Some criteria are distinct to the
6 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
Thanks to the implementation of the Support Our Students program in the early 1990s, North
Carolina is now in a position to utilize SOS to help bring our state into compliance with the No
Child Left Behind requirements.
With 98% of SOS programs already offering tutoring in Math
and Reading, North Carolina public schools clearly have a
tremendous resource to draw upon, outside of the classroom, to
aid in raising middle school students’ performance in Math and
Reading to meet NCLB standards. Middle schools may well be
able to target certain students who are experiencing difficulty
in Math or Reading for inclusion in their local SOS program.
Teachers would easily be able to monitor the progress of these
students who are receiving SOS tutoring via their in-class work.
In light of the NCLB initiative, full funding of the SOS
program will be crucial for North Carolina. Fully-funded,
f u l l y - s t a ffed, SOS programs may prove to be the saviors of
certain school districts that may otherwise fail to comply with
NCLB goals. The penalties for such failures will prove costly
and disruptive.
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 7
NCLB & SOS
Overview of Major Findings
The following is an overview of the major findings of EDSTAR’s evaluation
of the SOS program in school year 2002–2003.
We need to have
resources, especially in our
Hispanic program. Because
of the No Child Left Behind
ruling, these students are
under tremendous pressure
to pass tests, when they
are far behind in their lan -
guage development. In
Yancey County, the after
school program is key to
helping these youth suc -
ceed. We also need more
continual funding, so we
don't have to find other
funds all the time.
- Yancey County SOS
section of the NCLB Act and would not be reported under Title I, Part A. Not all schools will
receive funding under each of these acts. It is likely, however, that all states will receive funding
under most, if not all, of these initiatives.
Participant Demographics
8 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
• SOS programs served approximately the same number of males and females. Student participants
came from a variety of racial backgrounds.
• 59% of all SOS participants were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
• On days when students were not attending an SOS program, 30% of the elementary school
children and 56% of the middle school children were usually not supervised by an adult.
Student Perceptions and Behavior
There were some impressive and very encouraging results of participation in the SOS program.
Students reported overwhelmingly that they enjoyed school more, completed more homework, and
would recommend the program to a friend.
• On a student survey, 42% of the respondents said that they liked school more than they did
before starting the SOS program—roughly seven times more than those who said they liked
school less than they did before joining SOS. More than 75%
would recommend the program to a friend.
• More than a third (35%) of students surveyed said they completed
their homework during SOS, but didn't believe they would have
completed it if not there.
• The percentage of middle school SOS participants receiving out-of-
school suspensions decreased as compared to their previous
year in school (from 8% to 7%), as did the percentage of in school
suspensions.
• Classroom teachers reported that 36% of participants had improved behavior in math class
throughout this school year, and 35% had improved behavior in English/Language Arts classes.
More than a third
(35%) of students
surveyed said they
completed their
homework during
SOS, but didn't
believe they would
have completed it if
not there.
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 9
• At the beginning of the year, about one third of participants were not proficient in reading at
their grade level as measured by the 2002 North Carolina End-of-Grade (EOG) reading tests.
• At every grade except sixth, SOS participants’ mean EOG reading scale-score improvements
exceeded the state’s improvement goals.
• At eighth grade, the mean EOG math scale-score improvement exceeded the state’s improve-ment
goals, and at every grade, Hispanic participants’ mean EOG math scale-score improve-ment
exceeded the state’s improvement goals.
• The percentages of students who scored at grade-level proficiency increased in both reading
and math, with the most dramatic increase in reading—from 66% at grade level to 80%.
• The SOS programs with the greatest increases in percentages of participants who scored at
grade-level proficiency (24% or more increase) on EOG reading tests were in the following
counties:
• Rockingham
• Cumberland
• Gates
• Bertie
• Randolph
• Duplin
• The SOS programs with the greatest increases in percentages of
participants who scored at grade-level proficiency (20% or more
increase) on EOG math tests were in the following counties:
• Macon
• Scotland
• Wayne
• Pamlico
• Cleveland
• Mecklenburg
• SOS is helping to close the gap between minority and majority student achievement in North
Proficiency and Grade Levels
At eighth grade,
the mean EOG math
scale-score improve -
ment exceeded the
state’s improvement
goals, and at every
grade, Hispanic par -
ticipants’ mean EOG
math scale-score
improvement
exceeded the state’s
improvement goals.
Carolina. Minority SOS participants made significantly greater improvements than White
students in both math and reading.
• Combining all minority groups and comparing their EOG
scale-score gains with those of White students showed that
minority SOS participants made nearly twice the gains of
White students.
• Hispanic participants made the greatest gains in EOG scale
scores, followed by African Americans.
• Classroom teachers reported that almost 60% of participants
improved their grades in English and/or math.
10 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
Financial Information
SOS programs were able to creatively fund their programs, and received a large amount of help
from their communities and from outside sources.
• In addition to hiring paid staff, nearly all counties used volunteers. Hiring tutors (at $15/hour)
instead of using volunteers would have cost SOS more than $1.4 million for the school year.
The value of in-kind contributions (donated use of school facilities, transportation, etc.) was
estimated to be over $2.5 million.
• Many counties raised additional operating revenue for their programs. Additionally, 69% of
the program directors reported that they used the evaluation reports provided by DJJDP for
accountability to other funding sources, obtaining a total of more than $4.6 million.
• The average program served students at a cost in SOS dollars of $1.90 per hour, which has
decreased by $1.00 from last year. Thus, despite funding cuts, SOS program directors found
ways to stretch what funding they did receive.
Classroom teachers
reported that almost
60% of participants
improved their grades
in English and/or math.
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 11
Additional Benefits for N o rth Caro l i n a
After nine years of funding, SOS has begun
to offer some unexpected benefits to the state.
North Carolina's investment in SOS has not only
paid its return in academic and social benefits
for middle school students, it has also produced
a group of experienced service providers whose
expertise is now recognized and sought out by
other agencies. Their expertise has begun to
enhance the after-school care system itself in
surprising ways.
No benefit has been more unexpected than
the opportunity North Carolina school systems
now have to utilize SOS to help meet the goals
articulated by the Federal Government’s No
Child Left Behind initiative. SOS programs
throughout the state are perfectly positioned
to aid in raising student achievement in Math
and Reading. Middle school students have
been improving their grades in Math and
English (Reading) for years thanks to the tuto-rial
attention they’ve received through their
local SOS programs.
Given the requirements for student achieve-ment
in Math and Reading imposed by NCLB,
it’s reasonable to conclude that North Carolina
would’ve had to invent SOS, or some program
very much like it, right now, in order to help
students who need tutoring beyond the classroom
In the spring of 2002, the vice president
of public issues of the R.J. Reynolds
Company, Stephen Strawsburg, contacted
Carole Yardley, executive director of YMCA
Community Outreach Services (which
includes the Forsyth, Davie, and Stokes
SOS programs). In 1993 R.J. Reynolds had
developed a “Right Decisions/Right Now”
public service program for school guidance
counselors. Its goal was to provide schools
with materials that could help discourage
students from smoking and help them make
sound decisions, independent of peer pres -
sure. R.J. Reynolds had become interested
in expanding the program to after-school
program sites such as those administered
by SOS. Mr. Strawsburg approached Ms.
Yardley about the possibility of implement -
ing it at her SOS sites. R.J. Reynolds funded
the initial phases of the proposal for
$19,500, with subsequent phases to be con -
sidered for funding as the initial phases are
completed. Under the leadership of Ms.
Yardley, SOS directors from 10 counties
have reviewed and revised the curriculum
materials and developed appropriate staff-training
materials. This joint program not
only represents a valuable corporate–public
sector partnership, but its curriculum intro -
duces the concept of “asset building” as the
foundation of the materials. Tentatively
entitled “Youth at Promise” (as opposed to
youth at risk), the new curriculum will be a
brief, concise enrichment program that
addresses such topics as values, responsi -
bility, decision making, peer pressure, con -
flict resolution, parental involvement, and
community service.
in Math and Reading. With SOS in place and functioning effectively for years, it is only a matter
of the State Legislature fully funding SOS, so that it can be a viable teaching adjunct for North
Carolina school districts.
12 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 13
14 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
This evaluation is designed to accomplish three primary goals: 1) Describe who was served
and how they benefited from services; 2) Identify practices that resulted in desired outcomes
for children; and 3) Provide information that can be used to improve programs.
To accomplish these goals, evaluators analyzed a variety of data, including demographic
descriptions of participants, school absences, academic outcomes, standardized North Carolina
End-of-Grade achievement test scores and survey data.
All of the data in this report are for 2002–2003 participants. Data labeled for prior years are
comparison data for the same students in prior years—not data for SOS programs in prior years.
More detailed information on how SOS programs performed in prior years can be found in the
Support Our Students Evaluation Reports for 1999–2000, 2000–2001, and 2001–2002 at
www.edstar.org/reports.html.
Evaluators gathered information on the structures of various SOS programs and the implemen-tation
of curricula by interviewing and surveying the 97 county program directors from whom
the data were available.5 Both the t e l ephone interviews and the Web-based surveys were com-pleted
in the spring of 2003. The surveys and interviews helped evaluators identify the specific
activities offered by each county program as well as the hours of operation and average daily
attendance at all the sites. Also, the evaluation team collected information regarding volunteers
and the degree to which each program succeeded in securing other grants and assistance from col-laborating
agencies.
The evaluators also surveyed the SOS students. From this survey, the evaluators learned what
SOS participants valued most in an after-school program, as well as students' perceptions of their
specific SOS programs and staff.
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 15
Goals and Methodology
Today's increasing number of two-income families and single-parent families has resulted in
fewer parents at home between the end of the school day and the early evening, between 2:00
p.m. and 6:00 p.m. As previously noted, during this unsupervised period of time, a large number of pre-teens
and teenagers are involved in delinquent acts, or are victims of criminal acts. An analysis of
the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System revealed that violent crimes by juveniles crest
between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., a peak that occurred on school days only.6
According to the United States Department of Education, as many as 28 million children have
parents who work outside the home.7 In 69% of all married-couple families with children ages 6–17,
both parents work outside the home; in 79% of single-mother families and 85% of single-father
families with children ages 6–17, the custodial parent is working.8 This can leave a large gap
between parents’work schedules and their children’s school schedules.
In a survey of SOS participants, EDSTAR found that on days when students were not attend-ing
an SOS program, approximately 13% of program participants rarely or never had adult super-vision
after school, and 19% had supervision only sometimes. Eighteen percent of the students who
usually did not have adult supervision after school typically attended SOS at least five days per
week. Fifty-three percent attended four days per week.
Supervision occurred less frequently for middle school students than it did for elementary
school students. On days when students were not attending an SOS program, 30% of elementary
school children and 56% of middle school children usually were not supervised by an adult.
Over the years, psychologists, criminologists, educators, and others have learned many lessons
about leaving children unsupervised and vulnerable. For example, an American Psychological
In many communities across the nation, parents have an urgent need for quality after-school
programs.
16 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
Rationale for the SOS Pro g r a m
Adult Supervision
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 17
Association study showed that eighth grade students who care for themselves 11 or more hours a
week are at twice the risk of substance abuse (alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana) as are those who
are supervised after school.9
In North Carolina, the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveyed 2,227
middle school students and found that over half these boys and girls had consumed alcohol, 53%
had smoked cigarettes, 17% had smoked marijuana, 25% had considered suicide, and 10% had
attempted suicide. At least 20% of the boys in the survey had access to a gun.1 0
These percentages are even higher for high school students. However, research indicates that
the best way to prevent at-risk, high-school-age youths from committing delinquent acts or dropping
out of school is to address problems at the elementary or middle school level.11
Academic Assistance
Recent studies have noted the positive effect after-school programs have on grades and behavior
of participants. In one study, researchers attributed participants' improved test scores to program
activities designed to build their self-esteem.1 2 The most effective ways to influence at-risk middle
school students is individualized assistance with academic skills, leadership-building experiences,
and one-on-one counseling to build self-esteem and achieve success in school. Field trips and coop-erative
recreational activities also help improve social skills.
Many SOS participants benefit not only from after-school supervision, but from the academic
support they receive. Studies in various parts of the country have found positive effects of after-school
programs on participants' grades. The recent legislation that requires students to pass the
North Carolina EOG tests in grades 3, 5, and 8 underscores the need for academic support and
tutoring for students. Most SOS programs provide one-on-one tutoring and teach students good
study habits.
Overall, SOS programs served approximately the same number of males and females. The
majority of participants were in grades 6–8.
18 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
Description of Participants
About a third of the students were registered for services five days per week, and about half the
program participants were registered to attend SOS sessions four days per week. Only about a fifth
of the participants were scheduled to attend SOS for fewer than four days per week.
Grade Level of Participants
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 19
Racial Diversity
The following chart shows that the program served a racially diverse group of students.
W h i t e
4 2 %
Asian
1%
H i s p a n i c
6 %
N a t i v e
A m e r i c a n
1 % O t h e r
1 %
B l a c k
4 9 %
Racial Diversity
20 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
The percentage of SOS participants who lived in single- and two-parent households varied from
county to county as well. Overall, 57% of the participants lived in single-parent households. Three
counties ��� Davie, Union and Yancey — had 80% or more of students living in two-parent households;
11 counties had 20% or less students living in two-parent households.
Home Living Situation
Percentage of SOS participantswho
were eligible for reduced-price lunch.
Number of Counties
0% - 20% 2
21% - 40% 17
41% - 60% 23
61% - 80% 31
81% - 100% 25
Socio-Economic Diversity
About 59% of SOS participants were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. However, in 48%
of the counties, more than two thirds of participants were eligible. The following table shows the
socio-economic diversity for SOS participants across counties.
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 21
Percentage of SOS participants
living with both parents
Number of Counties
0% - 20% 11
21% - 40% 39
41% - 60% 39
61% - 80% 5
81% - 100% 3
With Whom Participants Reside
Group Home
Foster Care
Other Relatives
Father Only
Mother Only
Father and
S t e p m o t h e r
Mother and
S t e p f a t h e r
Both Parents
0 %
1 %
8 %
3 %
3 6 %
4 3 %
9 %
2 %
0 % 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 5 0 %
22 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
Academic Attributes of Participants and Their Parents
Two thirds of all North Carolina SOS participants were reading at or above grade level at the
beginning of the 2002–2003 school year (as measured by the 2001 North Carolina EOG reading
tests).
Across counties, the academic achievement levels of SOS participants varied greatly, as the
following table illustrates.
Percentage of SOS participants who were reading
below grade level before the 2002 – 2003 school year
Number of Counties
0% - 20% 0
21% - 40% 1
41% - 60% 30
61% - 80% 27
81% - 100% 42
Overall, 20% of the participants’ parents had formal education beyond high school; 68% of
parents were high school graduates; and 12% did not finish high school. Parents' education varied
from county to county.
About 12% of the students had a learning disability or an emotional or physical handicap, and
8% were academically gifted.
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 23
Percentages of Participants with Special
Education Classification
0 % 5 % 1 0 % 1 5 % 2 0 %
8 %
1 . 4 7 %
0 . 1 3 %
2 . 7 9 %
8 %
0 . 9 7 %
2 . 11 %
0 . 0 9 %
0 . 4 2 %
2 5 %
Other Exceptional Classifications
Academically Gifted
B E H
Hearing Impaired
E W H
Specific Learning Disability
Speech-Language Impaired
Visually Impaired
Other Impairment
Orthogpedically Impaired
Traumatic Brain Injury
24 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 25
26 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 27
All county program directors sought to achieve the overall goals of the SOS program as outlined
in the 1994 Crime Control Prevention Act, but directors differed on what they stressed and how
they chose to accomplish the goals. Although all of the programs sought to improve academic
performance and provide a safe, drug-free environment, many counties also sought to modify
students’ behavior and self-esteem through behavior modification programs, one-on-one mentoring,
pregnancy prevention programs, drug and alcohol awareness programs, conflict resolution discussion
groups, career skills seminars, and special activities designed to improve social skills and leadership
skills. Also, some counties expanded their goals to provide hot meals, health education, cultural
awareness, avenues for community service, and other enrichment activities.
The size of county SOS programs ranged from over 1,000 students served (in both Durham and
Orange Counties) to about 50 students served (in each of 13 rural counties). The number of sites also
varied from county to county; 44% of counties had just one site, while three counties (Brunswick,
Mecklenburg and Watauga) had 10 or 11 sites.
P rogram Characteristics
Number of Sites Number of Counties
1 39
2 25
3 - 4 14
5 - 8 7
9 - 11 4
28 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
About two thirds (64%) of the participants attended the program at least 30 days, and were
therefore considered “regular attendees.” Students who attended fewer days were not expected to
have measurable outcomes that could be attributed to the program. In 16 counties, more than 90%
of the participants were regular attendees.
Most of the counties had specific attendance requirements and served only regular attendees.
Programs used incentives such as SOS bucks and field trips to encourage students to attend as often
as possible. Most of the students were enrolled four or five days per week.
Most sites were school-based, while some were located outside the schools. These community-based
sites were in Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCAs, a YWCA, various 4-H Cooperative Extension facilities,
community centers, recreation centers, resource centers, learning centers, churches, a religious-based
outreach center, a housing authority building, and a childcare center. School-based sites often had a
ready supply of teachers who could serve as tutors, access to computers and audio/video equipment,
plenty of desks, and fewer transportation issues. On the other hand, some community-based sites
could offer more diverse recreational opportunities, such as swimming and table tennis.
All of the programs served participants after school or in the evening. In addition, some counties
served participants at other times. The following chart shows the percentages of counties that served
children at times other than after school on school days.
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 29
Referral to SOS
The majority of students were enrolled in the program by their parent(s) or guardian. In some
cases, school staff knew of students who would benefit and referred them to the program. Almost
12% of participants referred themselves. The following chart shows how students learned of the
program and became involved.
Some county SOS programs offered services more days and hours than did others. Statewide,
222 SOS sites in 97 counties were open a total of more than 186,000 hours. The number of sites
has increased steadily over the previous years, but declined about 10% per year.
In addition to serving participants during the school year, 68 counties provided services to a
statewide total of approximately 8,000 youngsters during the summer months or when students in
year-round schools were tracked out. In all, nearly 17,000 different students were served. This is a
marked decline from last year, when 81 counties served approximately 10,000 students in the summer
and 23,000 total. This decline was due to the decrease in funds.
30 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
According to a report on after-school programs by the U. S. Department of Education and the
U.S. Department of Justice, good after-school programs include a variety of enriching activities that
complement the school day.13 SOS programs sought to achieve their goals through a variety of
activities, including homework assistance, one-on-one tutoring, mentors, computer use, mini-courses
on a variety of life-skills topics, games, field trips, and other activities. The following table s h o w s
the responses by SOS students surveyed about what activities they think are most important in an
after-school program such as SOS.
Curriculum and A c t i v i t i e s
P a r e n t / G u a r d i a n
5 7 %
Mental Health
1 %
S c h o o l
2 5 %
S e l f
1 2 %
O t h e r
4 %
D S S
1 %
Who Referred Students to SOS
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 31
*Other activities included guest speakers, career awareness, counseling, and cultural events.
Percentage of Student Survey Response
Activity Students indicated that
this is important
Homework assistance 68%
Tutoring in math or science 48%
Tutoring in English or reading 43%
Mentoring 28%
Arts and crafts 54%
Clubs 50%
Sports 59%
Television or videos 47%
Playing games 68%
Using a computer 64%
Field trips 73%
Community service 35%
See chart on following page
32 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
Still other activities included golf lessons, gymnastic lessons, chorale, health education, career
exploration, teen court, a Young Entrepreneur Program, teen discussion groups, quilting, and fabric
art, as well as African cultural dance, song, and mask making. Classes included pregnancy prevention,
drug and alcohol prevention, character development, dance, diversity training, global awareness,
African drumming, cooking, martial arts, drill team, relaxation/stress management, team building,
and leadership. Some students also used the time in SOS to take makeup tests, visit the school
library, practice band instruments, participate in parades, entertain at local festivals and functions,
and be tutored in Spanish, computers, and a variety of school subjects.
In the EDSTAR student survey, when program participants were asked to identify characteristics
of an ideal after-school program, more students chose homework assistance than any other category.
As one can see from the following table, 35% of the students surveyed were able to finish their
homework before going home from the SOS program, and reported they probably wouldn’t have if
not in the program.
I don't get
my homework
done
I finish my
homework
during SOS,
but otherwise
wouldn't
I would get
my homework
done either
way
Which best describes you? 5% 35% 60%
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 33
Sites offered a variety of types of academic assistance, including one-on-one tutoring, group
assistance and supervision, enrichment activities to support what the students were learning, and
time to complete homework. The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
made available training in the North Carolina Standard Course of Study to help staff plan activities
that support the curriculum. Although homework assistance was offered in all counties, it was not
offered at all sites; 23% of sites did not offer homework assistance.
Academic Assistance
Computer Use
Student survey responses indicated that two thirds of participants used computers in the SOS
program. According to interviews with program staff, many of these students don’t have computers
at home, and this was their only access to computers.
Often
Once in a
while
Rarely or
never
How often do you use computers
in your after-school program?
27% 40% 33%
EDSTAR found that students tend to use computers and the Internet more in programs that have
secured enough machines to make them available to participants at all of their sites. Program
participants accessed the Internet once a week or more in over 50% of the county SOS programs
where computers were available at all sites. However, in county SOS programs where computers
were not available at all sites, only 19% of the surveyed directors indicated that participants
accessed the Internet more than once per week.
34 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
Approximately 80% of the SOS county programs
used some kind of behavior modification system in
their curriculum. Some examples of how SOS staff
members attempted to modify program participants’
behavior include the following:
• Students were asked to sign behavioral contracts.
• Group meetings were held to resolve issues.
• The time students could spend on computers and at
recess was extended for good behavior.
• Courses in martial arts were taught to instill self-confidence
and responsibility.
• Students were rewarded with certificates for
improving grades or behavior.
• Points or tokens, often called “SOS bucks” or “club
bucks,” were issued to students for positive attitude
and behavior. Once a week or month, depending on
the program, students could use the points or tokens
to purchase items at an SOS “store” or to shop at an
SOS auction.
• Students with regular attendance who remained on
task and completed assignments were invited to
weekly pizza parties; students who made academic
gains or were on the honor roll were invited to
bowling parties every six weeks; and students who
Vance County SOS students went to
the LuLu Tech Circus in Raleigh, an
exposure to computers and gadgets.
Students were exposed to cutting edge
technology in the computer field.
Students also participated in the Shaw
University Gear-Up Day--a collabora -
tion with Henderson Middle School (the
other Vance County Middle School).
Seventh and eighth graders visited
Shaw University, toured the campus,
attended science and drama classes
directed toward the visiting students, a
music presentation, and a football
game. Students also attended the
Gear-Up Kick-Off conference where
Representative Bob Etheridge was the
keynote speaker. SOS students and
families attended the play Oliver. Some
SOS students performed in the play.
Students also experienced having din -
ner in Durham and attending the
Collage African Dance Ensemble pres -
entation.
Some of the SOS dancers participated
in a Dance Conference. The major
emphasis from every field trip attended
this year has been exposure. Many
Vance County students had not been
out of Vance County. Each field trip
was an opportunity to expose students
to enjoyable, educational opportunities
they may not ever have experienced
previously. Students and their families
grew from their participation.
Behavior Modification
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 35
Field Trips
Trips that did not require extensive travel included visits to museums, plantations, hospitals,
prisons, and factories. Other field trips included afternoon excursions to a bowling alley, skating
rink, or shopping mall. A few students wrote that field trip experiences provided them with unique
opportunities to learn a new skill or go places they would not otherwise be able to visit. In Davie
County, SOS students went camping and learned basic survival skills in the wilderness; many
became CITs (counselors in training). Gaston County SOS students went to Washington, DC, where
they volunteered at local soup kitchens. They prepared food and served hundreds of needy people
in the area, and toured the Holocaust Museum and various government facilities. Gaston's SOS
students also took an end-of-summer trip to Myrtle Beach to relax and have fun.
One activity that many county directors and program participants deemed to be an important
aspect of the SOS initiative was community service. Community service projects involved, among
other things, reading to elderly residents of a nursing home, picking up trash, planting flowers,
working at a food bank, or collecting donations for a rescue mission. In Buncombe Country,
students from the SOS program worked with organizations that aid women and children who are
displaced due to domestic violence, prison, job loss, etc. The students interviewed clients and staff
while volunteering with the organizations. The entire project was documented on video, as students
interviewed, kept journals, and took photographs. Their final video documentary will be shown at
local Rotary clubs.
had good or improved academics and behavior throughout the year were invited to participate
in an end-of-the-year trip to an amusement park such as Busch Gardens.
36 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
Student Perceptions of Staff and the SOS Program
More than three quarters of the students surveyed agreed with the statement, “The staff is
friendly.” Students in elementary school were more inclined to agree with this statement than were
middle school students. Only 1 student in 9 (12%) of those surveyed would not recommend the
program to a friend.
Most SOS county directors have coordinated Support Our Students programs in their counties
for more than two years.
S t a ff and Vo l u n t e e r s
N u m b e r of Paid
and Vo l u n t e e r S t a ff
The number of staff members1 4 employed varied in each
county program, as did the source of the money used to pay
employees. The majority (67%) of the SOS county programs
used at least one employee who was not paid with SOS
funds. For example, Orange County used 50 staff members,
but only 7 were paid with SOS funds; the additional staff
members were paid by the Orange County Public School
System, a collaborator of the SOS program. Across the state,
a total of 1,246 individuals worked in SOS county programs
in school year 2002–2003, but only about one half of these
staff members were paid with SOS funds.
Ashe County 4-H SAC-SOS pro -
gram is very proud of our program.
Our program won the Volunteerism
Award in Wilming- ton 2002 for
most volunteers involved and
most volunteer hours. Recently
we acquired a new staff member,
a 4-H Migrant Education
Coordinator, Mr. Michael Kelleher.
Mr. Kelleher assists with the
Hispanic youth involved in School
Age Care and Support Our
Students Programs. We are very
pleased to have this opportunity
to serve these youth.
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 37
Strongly
agree
Agree
No
Opinion/
Neutral
Do not
agree
Strongly
disagree
The staff is friendly. 46% 33% 13% 4% 4%
The after-school
program is fun. 48% 30% 13% 4% 5%
I would recommend the
program to a friend. 47% 39% 12% 5% 7%
In addition to using paid staff, 93 county programs received the free labor of volunteers who
tutored, supervised activities, presented special topics, and helped raise funds. Many volunteers
came from organizations that performed community service, such as churches or the Junior League.
The average number of volunteers in a week was nine; however, the range was large. While most
counties had fewer than 10 volunteers per week, Ashe, Cleveland, Gaston, Rockingham, and
Orange county SOS programs all had more than 40 volunteers per week. In an average week during
the 2002–2003 school year, volunteers worked a total of 2,692 hours. If SOS had paid $15 per hour
for this labor, the annual (school year) cost would have been over $1.4 million.
38 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
Program Funding and Cost
The 97 county SOS programs evaluated by EDSTAR all received funding from the Department
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention throughout the 2002–2003 school year. Grant
awards ranged in size from $60,000 to $250,000 per year. Some counties received additional mini-grants
for summer programs.
Because of volunteer labor, and additional sources of revenue, the cost per student per hour
paid by the State of North Carolina through the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention to provide after-school services for one student was $1.90. Orange County’s 8¢ per stu-dent
per hour was the lowest cost in the state; the highest was $11.57 in Rowan County. The aver-age
program served students at a cost, in SOS dollars, of about $1.90 per hour, which was about
$1.10 less than the state average for the 97 SOS county programs in operation throughout school
year 2000–2001. In general, counties with the lowest costs per student made the greatest use of in-kind
donations and obtained more non-SOS grant monies. Orange County SOS, for instance,
obtained 51% of its funding from non-SOS sources. All of the programs provided homework assis-tance,
cultural activities, and character-building activities. Many programs also provided one-on-one
tutoring, and tutors were trained in the NC Standard Course of Study. Evaluators checked the
price of private tutoring for school-age children in North Carolina, and the price ranged from $20
to $37 per hour. So, even the most expensive cost per hour for SOS was far below the price of sim-ilar
services—which the parents of most participants would not have been able to afford.
A total of 93 counties received additional, non-SOS funding from other grants and fundraising
initiatives. These non-SOS grants came from such sources as the Americorp Fellowship Grant,
Communities in Schools of North Carolina, the Governor's Crime Commission, JC Penny Golden
Rule Grant, Learn and Serve America, the Mary Babcock Reynolds Foundation, the North Carolina
Department of Social Services, Philip Morris—Positive Youth Development Initiative, RJR
Foundation Grant, Safe Schools—Healthy Students, Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative Grant,
United Way, and the US Department of Education’s 21st Century Community Learning Center
grant. The additional revenue of $6.4 million substantially increased the financial resources of
the state's SOS initiative.
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 39
Collaboration With Outside Agencies
Aside from non-SOS grants, additional fundraising also came from soliciting contributions
through bake sales, garage sales, and other creative products and events.
A substantial number (43%) of the county SOS programs charged a fee for services. This fee
ranged from a one-time $5.00 registration fee to $6.00 per day. All of the SOS county programs
that charged a fee for services offered full scholarships to students who qualified. In some of the
counties that offered full scholarships, partial scholarships were also available.
The value of in-kind contributions was estimated at $2–3 million per year. In-kind contributions
included free use of school facilities, utilities, computer and audio/video equipment, and transportation.
Some school districts (such as the Orange County School District) even paid the salaries of site
coordinators and other SOS staff members.
SOS county programs collaborated with hundreds of agencies across the state to enhance the
curriculum and improve the quality of the service provided. Collaborators included police depart-ments,
food banks, school systems, arts councils, libraries, US Department of Education 21st
Century Community Learning Centers, North Carolina Juvenile Crime Prevention Council, North
Carolina Department of Social Services, health departments, North Carolina Cooperative Extension
Services (4-H), YMCAs, YWCAs, Boys and Girls Clubs, Girl Scouts, housing authorities, United
Way, Lions Club, museums, municipal governments, Governor's Crime Commission, Red Cross,
Communities in Schools, area universities, local churches, Mother Read Program, Governor's One
on One Program, the North Carolina Department of Mental Health, Learn and Serve America,
Adolescent Enrichment Council, Hospice, and the March of Dimes.
A good relationship with the local school districts was a critical factor in the success of SOS
county programs. For many SOS county programs, another important collaboration was with
Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils.
40 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 41
42 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 43
NC EOG scores were examined to determine the following: 1) whether SOS participants
improved their EOG scores; 2) whether grade-level differences were observed; 3) whether more
students scored at or above grade level; 4) whether demographic factors affected improvement; and
5) whether participants continued to improve over time. The results showed that in every grade
except sixth, students made greater academic improvement than goals set by the state in reading,
and eighth grader participants made greater improvements than the goals set by the state in math;
more students scored at grade level or above; and students who participated multiple years made
steady progress, at a constant rate, each year. This academic progress may be because participants
were supervised, had homework assistance, had one-on-one tutoring if needed, and were fed
healthy snacks—as opposed to being unsupervised and alone after school, as many students reported
they would be without SOS. Teachers also reported improvements in course grades and behavior.
North Carolina EOG scale-score results were analyzed by grade level for SOS participants to
compare their reading improvement against state EOG improvement goals. These analyses showed
that for middle school participants who attended SOS at least 30 days, the average improvement
in all grades except sixth exceeded the year- o v e r-year EOG improvement goals set by the NC
Department of Public Instruction. In math, the EOG improvement exceeded the goals of the NC
DPI for eighth grade participants.
End of Grade Scores
EOG Score Improvement
Academic Achievement Results
Students Scoring at Grade-Level Proficiency
Evaluators analyzed EOG results to determine whether more SOS participants scored at grade-level
proficiency at the end of the 2002–2003 school year compared with the previous year. The
following charts show that the percentages of students who scored at grade-level proficiency
increased in both math and reading.
44 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
Percentage scoring at Grade Level or Above on EOG
6 0 %
8 0 % 8 2 %
8 5 %
Percentages of Students For Whom Classroom Te a c h e r s
Reported Improvement From Mid Term to the End of the Ye a r
1 0 0 %
0 %
1 0 %
2 0 %
3 0 %
4 0 %
5 0 %
6 0 %
7 0 %
8 0 %
9 0 %
I m p r o v e d
Math Grade
Improved Behavior
in English Class
I m p r o v e d
English Grade
Improved Behavior
in Math Class
Reading Math
2001-2002 2002-2003 2001-2002 2002-2003
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 45
The SOS programs with the greatest increases in percentages of participants who scored at
grade-level proficiency (20% or more increase) on EOG reading were in the following counties:
• Alamance
• Scotland
• Pamlico
• Rockingham
• Cumberland
• Gates
• Bertie
• Randolph
The SOS programs with the greatest increases in percentages of participants who scored at
grade-level proficiency (20% or more increase) on EOG math were in the following counties:
• Macon
• Scotland
• Wayne
• Pamlico
• Mecklenburg
Of the homework assistance offered at SOS, math and English tutoring seems to offer the greatest
benefit to students. The large percentage of students who reported that the assistance was helpful
in reading may suggest that more appropriate, targeted assistance in that area may be especially
helpful. In any given subject, less than 20% of students responding said that homework assistance
was “no help.”
The following table summarizes students' perceptions of homework assistance:
46 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
How Much Does SOS Help With Schoolwork?
SOS is helping to close the gap between minority and majority student achievement in North
Carolina. Minority SOS participants made significantly greater improvements than White students
in both math and reading.
Hispanic and African American participants made greater gains in EOG scores compared with
every other ethnic group. This was statistically significant (p < .0001). This was true overall, and
when controlling for other factors, such as baseline achievement levels and risk factors.
Combining all minority groups and comparing their EOG reading scale-score gains with those of
White students showed that minority SOS participants made nearly twice the gain of White students.
Hispanic participants made the greatest gains in EOG math scores, followed by African
Americans. These differences were statistically significant (p < .01), but not nearly as great as
the differences observed in reading scores.
As found in pervious years, the average yearly improvement in EOG scores for students partici-pating
in SOS was almost half a proficiency level.
Demographic Groups
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 47
Potentially as important as any other measure is changes in students' behavior and their percep-tion
of school. The SOS program has some particularly noteworthy results in this area, as detailed
in the following sections.
Behavioral Outcomes
On the survey, 42% of students surveyed indicated that their feelings about school had changed
during the year (since joining SOS). Within this subgroup of students whose opinions about school
had changed, the percentage of students who said they liked school more than they did before
enrolling in SOS was roughly seven times greater than the percentage of students who said they
liked school less than before the program started. This is a tremendous result for any school-related
program, independent of all the other positive news for SOS.
How much does homework
assistance help in…
Helps
a lot
Helps
some
Helps a
little
No help
M a t h 48% 26% 14% 12%
Work habits 42% 27% 14% 17%
Other subjects 39% 29% 16% 16%
Reading/language arts 42% 28% 15% 15%
Elementary school students tended to give more credit to the SOS program for helping them
academically than did middle school students.
Classroom teachers reported that more than 60% of the regularly attending participants
improved their grade in English and/or math.
Changes in Participants’ Feelings Towards School
More than three quarters (78%) of the students
who were surveyed by EDSTAR agreed with the
statement, “The after-school program is fun.”
Similarly, approximately three fourths (77%) of the
students surveyed agreed with the statement, “I
would recommend the program to a friend.” W h e n
students were asked in an open-ended question to
identify the best thing about SOS, more students
identified homework assistance and academic help
than any other category.
As in previous years, male students who took
the EDSTAR survey were more than three times as
likely as female respondents to indicate that the
best thing about SOS was sports, games, or the
opportunity to use a gymnasium. Consistent with
previous years, elementary students also tended to
value homework assistance and academic help
more than middle school students did. Middle
school students reported on surveys that they
enjoyed SOS because it was a fun place where
they could be with their friends.
48 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
P rogram Highlights
We have had a great year and have
watched the children grow, both individ -
ually as well as together. I think the stu -
dent that comes to mind is a young man
in our Monday Program. He is very shy
and struggles in social situations. He is
one who has little interaction with any -
one throughout the day, students and
teachers alike. In fact, the first day he
came to Monday Club, he sat in the back
and fell asleep. It was interesting. We
noticed that he never missed a meeting
or a field trip. He always came by to
check to see if any activity plans had
changed. But still he would sit quietly in
the back of the room. We are now in the
eighth month of our program. He is still
quiet but he will speak up when he has
an opinion. The other students encour -
age him to become involved. He feels at
home with his SOS family. Just last
week he joined in with the rest of the
boys for a basketball game. This is not
the first time I have seen students
establish friendships for the first time as
a result of being in SOS.
– Greene County success story.
Suspension Data
The percentage of middle school SOS participants receiving out-of-school suspensions decreased
as compared to their previous year in school (from 8% to 7%), as did the percentage of in-school
suspensions. As children get older, they generally receive more suspensions for behavior, not fewer,
since stricter standards are applied to older students—so any decrease is especially noteworthy.
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 49
50 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
Although most of the SOS county programs are achieving their goals, and anyone would
agree that the SOS staff is doing a remarkable job, there are always ways to improve a program.
Following are some specific recommendations by EDSTAR based on its analysis of the available data.
Document effective practices. Given the variability in the outcomes among the county SOS
programs, EDSTAR recommends that the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention expand the evaluation to include determining which program components are effective.
Currently, the evaluation is primarily structured for general accountability and does not include
documenting details of program components that would make it possible to relate outcomes to
services. For example, the evaluation could include determining whether programs are using
curriculum with students, and if so, what kind---then relating this information to outcomes. Not
a lot of research exists regarding effective practices in after-school programs. The SOS program
would be an ideal program for doing such research.
Wish lists. EDSTAR asked SOS Directors across the state to submit a wish list that addressed
the specific needs of their various programs. More funding was the most persistent need. This is
hardly surprising, given the funding cuts imposed by the State Legislature on the SOS program in
2003. Increased funding, of course, would enable SOS programs to address a host of issues, such as
acquiring a bus or van, computers, cameras, educational supplies, textbooks, a television, a VCR.
Many directors expressed a need for more space or, conversely, the need to fund more staff so that
they can expand into available physical facilities. Some wishes don’t require an infusion of cash, as
with the repeated desire to acquire more volunteer help. A need that may be statewide is the ongoing
search for Hispanic volunteers to help Hispanic children with their reading skills. Given the rapidly
growing Hispanic population in North Carolina, and the reading initiative imposed by No Child
Left Behind, our state must find a way to dramatically increase the number of SOS tutors fluent in
English and Spanish.
Provide science and technology enrichment. North Carolina is going to begin testing science
proficiency. The No Child Left Behind initiative mandates testing, beginning in 2007, at least once
in each of the three grade spans (3-5) (6-9) (10-12). Many of the rural counties do not have suffi-cient
resources or teachers for high quality science teaching. SOS programs should begin planning
how they might support students to help them learn science. SOS might consider collaborating with
North Carolina State University’s The Science House, which provides outreach to public schools in
51
North Carolina to support science teaching. They might also look to The Burroughs Wellcome
Fund, which funds science enrichment programs for North Carolina middle school minority students.
State-level SOS staff should consider sharing the program's successful academic results with agencies
that support science enrichment, and offer to collaborate and accept their support in the future. This
would help the "trickle-down" of science enrichment to county-level programs.
Collaborate with schools to offer special reading services during the after-school program.
EDSTAR has analyzed some of the data for schools that have collaborated with after-school programs
to provide special reading services for low performing students during this time instead of pulling
them from class. Not only does this lower or remove the social stigma of receiving these services,
but students then do not miss class time to receive the services. Analyses of reading progress made
by students served during after-school time compared with students in the same schools who were
served during school time showed that those served after school made more improvement in their
EOG reading scores. The difference was statistically significant, and was true for students overall,
but the subgroups of students receiving free/reduced-price lunch and minority students made the
greatest gains after school, as compared with comparable students served during school.
Add program elements to help sixth graders. There is some evidence that one reason for
lack of success with improving sixth graders’ achievement may be the transition to middle school.
Educators have documented that sixth and ninth grade students have difficulty with the transition to
a new school, and this often causes problems unique to these grades. SOS staff could add program
components designed to help sixth graders with this difficult transition.
Seek out other funding sources. SOS staff could try to find additional grants to obtain the
funds they need to offer more activities. SOS has evidence that it is a successful program, is cost
effective, and a much-needed service. Directors should more actively seek funds, using the high
level of accountability and proven success to attract more funders.
52 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 53
1. For references and resources regarding juvenile crime, see
http://www.ncjrs.org/, the Justice Information Center Web site, maintained by
the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
2. Gordon Whitaker, Executive Summary for After-School Program
Handbook: Strategies and Effective Practices, The University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill Center for Urban and Regional Studies, November 1998.
3. An-Me Chung, After-School Programs: Keeping Children Safe and Smart.
The US Department of Education, p. 1, June 2000.
4. North Carolina’s Crime Control and Prevention Act of 1994, General
Statutes, Article 3, Chapter 143 B.
5. Some SOS county programs are headed by executive directors, while oth-ers
are headed by program directors. In this report we used the term “county
director” to identify the person responsible for program implementation in each
county.
6. Howard N. Snyder and Melissa Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and
Victims: 1999 National Report, National Center for Juvenile Justice, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, p. 64, September 1999.
7. An-Me Chung, After-School Programs: Keeping Children Safe and Smart.
The US Department of Education, p. 1, June 2000.
8. Bureau of Labor Force Statistics, Employment Characteristics of
Families, Table 4., "Families with own children: Employment status of parents
54 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
by age of youngest child and family type, 2000-01 annual averages," US Department of Labor,
2001.
9. American Psychological Association, Violence and Youth: Psychology’s Response, Vol. 1:
Summary Report of the American Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth,
Washington, DC, 1993.
10. North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction, Division of Accountability
Services/Research, “Middle School Risk Behavior: 1995 Survey Results,” Raleigh, NC, 1996.
11. Thomas P. Rugg, “Middle School Students at Risk: What Do We Do with the Most
Vulnerable Children in American Education?” Middle School Journal, vol. 24, no. 5, (May 1993),
pp. 10–12.
12. J.G. Ross, et. al., Journal of Community Psychology, OSAP special issue, "1992 The
Effectiveness of an after-school program from primary grade latchkey students on precursors of
substance abuse," pp. 22-38, 1992.
13. U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice, Working for Children
and Families: Safe and Smart After-School Programs, p. 3, April 2000.
14. The statistics in this section of the report pertain to number of staff members, not staff posi-tions.
The number of staff positions was often less than the number of staff members, as sometimes
two or more staff members would be responsible for one staff position.
© 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved 55
EDSTAR acknowledges with thanks the fine and enthusiastic work of Philip
VanVleck, Ph.D., author; Janet Johnson, Ph.D., author and statistical analyst;
Julie Johnson and Paula Rahders, technical writers/editors; Lisa Trumps, Carla
Fleming and Don Joffe, qualitative data collectors; Donna Dralle, graphic
designer and layout artist; Debra Turner for icon design; and, Helmuts Feifs,
Ph.D., North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, for provision of out-come
data. It was a team effort illuminated by individual expertise in each area.
Well done!
56 © 2003 EDSTAR, Raleigh-Durham, N.C. All rights reserved
General Information
C o u n t y Fiscal A g e n t H e a d q u a r t e r s
N u m b e r
of Sites
Alamance E Bynum Education Center Burlington 1
Alexander East Alexander Middle School Hiddenite 1
Alleghany 1
Anson Anson County Schools Wadesboro 1
Ashe Ashe Co. 4-H SOS Program Jefferson 5
Avery W.A.M.Y. Community Action, Inc. Boone 1
Beaufort Boys & Girls Club of Beaufort Co. Washington 2
Bertie Bertie County YMCA Windsor 1
Bladen Zara Betterment Corp. Council 6
Brunswick Comm. In Schools of Brunswick Co. LeLand 10
Buncombe YWCA of Asheville Asheville 3
Burke Blue Ridge Community Action Lenoir 2
Cabarrus Cabarrus County Center Concord 4
Caldwell The Education Foundation, Inc. Lenoir 2
Camden Camden Education Foundation Camden 1
Carteret Coastal Community Action, Inc. Beaufort 1
General Information
C o u n t y Fiscal A g e n t H e a d q u a r t e r s
N u m b e r
of Sites
Caswell Partnership for Children Yanceyville 1
Catawba City of Hickory Hickory 1
Chatham Mary Neal Child Care Center Pittsboro 2
Cherokee Power Parners Andrews 3
Chowan Chowan Middle School SOS Tyner 1
Clay Black & Gold Inc. Hayesville 1
Cleveland Commuities in Schools Shelby 2
Columbus Columbus County Services Tabor City 1
Craven Youth Vision, Inc. New Bern 1
Cumberland National Assoc. of Alumi
and Friends, Inc. Fayetteville 2
Currituck Currituck 4-H Currituck 2
Dare 4-H and Youth Foundation Manteo 2
Davidson J. Smith Young YMCA Lexington 4
Davie Davie Family YMCA Mocksville 1
Duplin Education Foundation Kenansville 1
Durham Durham Public Schools Durham 9
General Information
C o u n t y Fiscal A g e n t H e a d q u a r t e r s
N u m b e r
of Sites
Edgecombe Community Enrichment Org. Tarboro 4
Forsyth YMCA of Greater Winston-Salem Winston-Salem 2
Franklin Franklin County Schools
Foundation
Louisburg 1
Gaston Boys & Girls Club Gastonia 2
Gates Central Middle School SOS Gatesville 1
Graham Stecoah Valley Center Robbinsville 2
Granville Oxford Business and Professional
Chains
Oxford 5
Greene NC Coop. Ext. Snow Hill 3
Guilford YWCA of Greensboro Greensboro 10
Halifax St. Paul Baptist Church Enfield 4
Harnett
Haywood Haywood County Schools
Foundation Waynesville 1
Henderson Boys & Girls Clubs of Henderson Co. Hendersonville 1
Hertford Hertford County 4-H Winton 1
Hoke Just started again in March 2002 Raeford
Hyde Hyde County Schools Swan Quarter 1
General Information
C o u n t y Fiscal A g e n t H e a d q u a r t e r s
N u m b e r
of Sites
Iredell Communi-Care Statesville
Jackson Jackson County Public
Schools Sylva 3
Johnston Selma Middle School Selma 2
Jones Youth Vision, Inc. New Bern 2
Lee Get Smart Sanford 1
Lenoir Young Women's Outreach
Center
Kinston 2
Lincoln Lincoln Communities in School Lincolnton 4
Macon Support Our Students Franklin 2
Madison SOS 4-H Discovery Program Marshall 1
Martin Bertie, Martin, Washington,
CDC
Jamesville 1
McDowell McDowell Arts & Crafts
Associate Marion 2
Mecklenburg YWCA of the Central Carolinas Charlotte 10
Mitchell NC Cooperative Extension
Service Bakersville 4
Montgomery Neighborhood Youth
Leadership Inc. Southern Pines 3
Moore Neighborhood Youth
Leadership Inc. Southern Pines 1
Nash St. James Baptist Church Rocky Mount 2
General Information
C o u n t y Fiscal A g e n t H e a d q u a r t e r s
N u m b e r
of Sites
New Hanover Family Services of Lower
Cape Fear Wilmington 1
Northampton Choanoke Area Development
Assoc., Inc.
Rich Square 1
Onslow Jacksonville Commons Middle
School
Jacksonville 1
Orange Communities in Schools of
Orange County Hillsborough 8
Pamlico Education Foundation Bayboro 1
Pasquotank Economic Improvement
Council
Edenton 1
Pender Gospel Truth Mission Church Maple Hill 1
Perquimans Perquimans 20/20 Hertford 1
Person Cooperative Extension Service Roxboro 2
Pitt Boys & Girls Club Greenville 3
Polk Stuart & Margaret L. Forbes
Foundation, Inc. Columbus 1
Randolph Randolph/Asheboro YMCA Asheboro 1
Richmond Leak Street Alumni Rockingham 1
Robeson Communities in Schools Lumberton 2
Rockingham Communities in Schools Pembroke 4
Rowan Rowan County Youth Service
Bureau Salisbury 2
General Information
C o u n t y Fiscal A g e n t H e a d q u a r t e r s
N u m b e r
of Sites
Rutherford Rutherford County Schools Forest City 3
Sampson Goldsboro Development
District Roseboro 2
Scotland National Association for
University Women
Laurinburg
Stanly Neighborhood Youth
Leadership Inc.
Southern Pines 2
Stokes The YMCA of Greater Winston-
Salem Winston-Salem 1
Surry Surry Arts Council Mount Airy 1
Swain Swain County Schools 2
Transylvania Western Carolina Community
Action Brevard 2
Tyrrell Tyrell Action Group, Inc. Columbia 1
Union East Monroe Elementary
School
Monroe 1
Vance Vance County Public School
Foundation Henderson 3
Wake Wake County 4-H Youth
Development
Raleigh 9
Warren Warren Service Corps Warrenton 1
Washington Windows On The World CDC Roper 1
Watauga Watauga Youth Network Boone 11
Wayne Wayne County 4-H Goldsboro 2
General Information
C o u n t y Fiscal A g e n t H e a d q u a r t e r s
N u m b e r
of Sites
Wilkes Wilkes County Cooperative
Extension
Wilkesboro 1
Wilson Wayne Co. Youth Outreach
Program Goldsboro 1
Yadkin Yadkin County Schools Yadkinsville 8
Yancey Yancey County 4-H Burnsville 2
NC SOS 235
County SOS Directors Wished for. . .
Alamance We need a new building, an outdoor gym, and more funds.
Alexander We would like to attend the SOS Spring Conference.
Alleghany
We need more curriculum and enrichment activities to keep the students
entertained. We are trying to get set up with the JAM (Junior Appalachian
Musicians) Program, but we need extra funds for instruments and payroll for
instructors. We want to broaden the students' education to make it well
rounded.
Anson We need more money.
Ashe
Our programs would love to have more staff, to better serve youth and
increase our youth outreach. We would like to have more activity directors
so more opportunities could be offered; new experiences for students and
more hands-on activities. Transportation is a real issue because our county
is so rural and some students don't have the opportunity to stay for the
activities. We would really like to offer buses to take students to designated
sites within the county (closer to home or a shuttle service that will do the
same concept).
Avery
We need a larger space. We are so packed together. It's hard for some stu-dents
to concentrate with so much going on. We did get to use the comput-er
lab for the first time this year, but only for a few students at a time. I
would like a newer computer and internet access in our SOS room.
Beaufort We need a new gym floor and a new building for more space.
Bertie
We would like support from our local YMCA in regards to facilities that we
could use for our SOS program. I also wish that we did not have to pay for
transportation for our program. It is extremely expensive and we have
always provided transportation for our students.
Bladen
We would like more money for student field trips, and more software for the
computer. We would also like more money to upgrade staff salaries and
provide staff development money to help staff return to college to earn their
degrees.
Brunswick We are always in need of additional funding to help with our transportation
issues and to help us service more students within the county.
Buncombe Internet access and more funding.
Burke
We would like clothes baskets for students to place their coats and book-bags
in, a CD player, a karaoke machine, and clown costumes (a rest home
is being built beside our school and we would like to dress as clowns and
prepare skits for the patients). Also, we would like computers. We have
access to the school's computers but would like to have computers within
our program areas that we can use on a daily basis.
County SOS Directors Wished for. . .
Cabarrus
We are still striving to market our program so that more of those who can
benefit with the many things we offer can become involved. Of course, not
having to be anxious about yearly funding is only a dream.
Caldwell
We need more space, and more cooperation from county administration
staff. I feel that some help could come from SOS, with more positive and
more visible participation from the SOS staff. Could we have a training or
seminar for school administrative people? I know that it is the site coordina-tor's
job to advertise the accomplishments of the program, but as we are
trying to "blow our own horns," could it be possible to have more back up
from the state SOS staff in some way?
Camden We need more space.
Carteret We need more funding and more volunteers.
Caswell We need additional funding and more volunteers.
Catawba We need a mini bus. Transportation is a very big issue. We could do so
much more community service if we had better transportation.
Chatham
Cherokee We need more money and the ability to provide transportation. We need to
reach and serve more kids in our program.
Chowan
Clay We need an activity bus.
Cleveland We need more money. I'd also like the staff to receive training in activities
and behavior modification.
Columbus We need new equipment in all areas: computers, cameras, and physical
education supplies.
Craven We need a van.
Cumberland
Currituck
Dare
We need more money for programming. The state budget cuts hit our coun-ty
hard. We have had to modify our daily after-school program and will see
a huge change in our eight-week summer camp because of the cuts. We
continue to seek outside funding and are currently working towards getting
more monetary support from our county government.
County SOS Directors Wished for. . .
Davidson
Because our sites are so far apart, another mini bus or van would help us
provide more off-campus activities for our participants. We also could use
some more computers to allow all of our students to make better use of
study time.
Davie We need more space. We'd also like to have a ropes course.
Duplin
Our SOS Program needs supplies, because this was an area we cut so we
could hire the staff we felt necessary to provide the tutorial services our stu-dents
needed.
Durham
With our funding being cut last year by nearly 30%, it will be difficult to
serve all the students needing after- school services in Durham. We were
fortunate to have the 21st Century grant, but next year will be the last year
for that grant.
Edgecombe
The Community Enrichment Organization Support Our Students program
needs storage cabinets to store supplies. We wish we had dedicated space
at all sites. Moreover, the SOS staff has shown devotion and commitment
beyond the small salaries they receive for compensation. Raises to staff
members are overdue. Also, we need dedicated space in the schools, more
access to computers, a van, and funding to compensate staff who have
worked since 1994 without an increase in salaries.
Forsyth We need more stable funding, and better cooperation with schools to obtain
information and use of facilities.
Franklin We need more Hispanic tutors who are multi-cultural to reach the Hispanic
community.
Gaston Our program would benefit most from a van or bus. We could offer more
field trips and do more work in the community.
Gates We need more money.
Graham We need more trained staff and more training sessions.
Granville We would like to have a TV and VCR.
Greene
If I had any wish on my list it would be for designated space. I love being
housed in the schools and we have a fantastic working relationship. But it is
difficult for everyone involved. Just because school dismisses at 2:50 does-n't
mean the classrooms are available. Teachers have parent conferences,
meetings in their classrooms, or simply need quiet time to catch up on les-son
plans. Therefore, we don't have access to the room until 4:00 or later.
In effect, we have 25-40 kids with no place to go if it rains. The teachers are
in support of our program and, for the most part, try to be very accommo-dating.
But it is hard for us to maintain a schedule, plan projects that require
more than one hour of time, store belongings, or make it a fun and non-school-
day-like environment.
County SOS Directors Wished for. . .
Guilford
Transportation costs continue to rise and funding for the program continue
to be our biggest challenges. Due to program expansion, additional staff
development training is now needed for new staff. I wish we had a mini-bus
for each site and funding to support full-time staff for each site serving 50
students or more.
Halifax
We would like to be fully funded again and have more funds to buy some
playground equipment, and complete the library that was started at the
church for our summer students. We would love to have a van to provide
transportation for the students during summer school.
Harnett
Haywood
I wish I had a program for parents to work on parenting skills. Family partici-pation
is something we strive for, but is difficult to achieve. All parents are
welcome to travel or attend any event or activity within our program, but few
participate. We encourage our kids to identify problems, and work on solu-tions.
When no solution is readily available, hold on to the solution and
implement it whenever possible (in other words, break those negative
cycles). We would like to include parents in these same type of learning
skills. While we may not see the results of our efforts immediately, it is our
goal for our participants to see and realize the positive impacts of being in
Kids In Action, our SOS program.
Henderson We need more funding, more transportation for students, and better com-puter
software to prepare students for EOG testing.
Hertford We would like to have computers of our own with Internet service, a place
to call our own, and better parent involvement.
Hoke
Hyde We would like two or three computers for students to use. Our students are
not allowed to use the school's computer labs.
Iredell
Jackson We need closer cooperation from the busy faculty in order to better direct
the students' work activities. Also, we need more financial support.
Johnston
Jones Additional money to cover student activities and a van for transportation.
Lee We need more money than our current funding.
County SOS Directors Wished for. . .
Lenoir
Our program needs more money, staff, and more computers to serve our
existing students and reach more youth. We would also like to have a brand
new bus to transport our students, especially on field trips.
Lincoln
We desperately need transportation. Our only real obstacle in maximizing
the attendance for the program is limitations in transporting the students
home.
Macon We would like to have several 15-passenger vans to make transportation
more efficient.
Madison
We need a permanent classroom or location. We currently use the school
cafeteria, or (during the wrestling season) the upstairs foyer. Our biggest
concern for next year is funding for salaries and transportation.
Martin We would like more space.
McDowell We would like a 15-passenger van or bus for transportation, a central build-ing
for program site, and computers for student use.
Mecklenburg
We wish we had more resources, part time staff and transportation to serv-ice
more students. Our county needs quality after-school and summer camp
programs geared for middle school students. We have the experience and
desire to meet this gap in service. Also, we need better computers.
Mitchell We need our own facility.
Montgomery
We would like to have funding to provide ongoing summer reading enrich-ment
programs and rising sixth grade and ninth grade orientation summer
programs. Sixth and ninth grade students have the most difficult time being
successful in school, and an orientation gives them a boost to get off to a
good start. SOS is also looking for funding to provide ballet, keyboard, and
martial arts classes after school with area instructors. Also, we need more
transportation. A van would really help.
Moore We need transportation services, funded by the schools, that could serve
SOS students living on rural roads.
Nash
Our program needs money to increase the number of instructors for our stu-dents.
One school is overflowing with students and not enough teachers are
available to do small group tutorials. Better software is also needed to fur-ther
enrich our students in reading and math.
New Hanover We need more money and resources.
Northampton We need more funding for local summer camps and to help provide consis-tent,
positive activities for SOS students.
Onslow We need more funds. Our lack of funds limits the scope of our field trips.
County SOS Directors Wished for. . .
Orange We would like more money for field trips and other student incentives.
Pamlico We need a large grill for cookouts. We also need more staff development.
Pasquotank We would like a community building that we could frequent from time to
time to do activities. We also need more money for transportation.
Pender I wish we had a van or bus. It would solve our transportation problem.
Perquimans We would like more community volunteers.
Person We need volunteers, more money, transportation, text books, and materials
for learning.
Pitt
At two of our three sites, our facilities and equipment are very old and worn.
We are working on developing new sites, but that will take a while to
accomplish. We would like to get new equipment for the game rooms, such
as pool tables and table games to help with the social recreation areas of
the sites. We also need school supplies and other incentives for our home-work
assistance program (Power Hour). This can include games, school
supplies, snacks, and other items that the students can earn for the points
they accumulate for completing their homework correctly. Other needs
include funding for snacks, gas for the vehicles that transport the members
from school each day and on field trips. We can always use more volun-teers
to work with the Power Hour program and other activities.
Polk We would love to have our own Vans to use for outings. I'd also like addi-tional
funding to be able to offer a summer program.
Randolph We need more games and more supplies.
Richmond
We would like more money so that our salaries would attract teachers to
help with tutoring needs. We especially need tutors who can help the stu-dents
meet test objectives.
Robeson We would like more volunteers and mentors.
Rockingham We would like the means to accommodate all students who want to be in
the SOS program.
Rowan
Rutherford We are going to use the Food Bank to aid us in the purchase of nutritious
snacks.
Sampson We need more funds.
County SOS Directors Wished for. . .
Scotland
Stanly We need additional funds to expand to other sites in Stanly County.
Stokes Our program needs to be able to provide transportation home in the after-noon
and to and from our summer program.
Surry
As our program has increased by 50% since the program began, additional
funding would be helpful. We now serve the 6th grade, in addition to grades
7 and 8. Middle school students from other schools often request to partici-pate,
but we have been unable to expand our services due to limited
funding.
Swain We would like more money to fund more positions, supplies, and trips. I
wish we had our own room or building in which to meet.
Transylvania We need money and dedicated space.
Tyrrell
Union We need extra funds.
Vance
We would like more volunteers. We need more flexibility within our space.
It is good to be located within a school. However some of the reluctance to
allow certain things hinders the director's ability to try certain projects.
Having to be mobile does challenge creativity, yet it can be limiting.
Wake
The budget at East Wake Middle School was cut due to the state's budget
cut. The program needs an increase in funding. The program wants to meet
the needs of the students with adequate staffing and more volunteers. I
wish I had adequate funding for the program. Also, we would like additional
funds to make site coordinator positions full time positions with benefits. A
full time position could focus more on innovative and quality programming
opportunities. It would also ensure reduced turnover in staff. Furthermore,
our major need is funds to support more staff. The biggest influence we
have on our students is mentoring them with role models. Finally, we need
additional support for our Hispanic community High School Program.
Warren We would like to have our own building for our SOS Program. We also
need computers and transportation.
Washington Other than additional funding, we need more volunteers.
Watauga
I would like to solicit more funds from local businesses to increase our
scholarship fund. I would also like to recruit volunteers with regular sched-ules
and background checks that can serve as potential staff members. We
also need more space within the school buildings, and the freedom to use
the space to its fullest potential. Increased funding from additional grants
and foundations would allow us to reduce our fees.
County SOS Directors Wished for. . .
Wayne We need more funding.
Wilkes We need more money.
Wilson
We need more money. For the size and juvenile delinquent rate in Wilson
County, we need at least the State average of funds to operate the Program
effectively.
Yadkin
Our dream would be to have a dedicated space that we did not have to
share with band, music, art classes, etc, so that we could leave our room
set-up appropriately for our program.
Yancey
We need to have resources, especially in our Hispanic program. Because of
the No Child Left Behind ruling, these students are under tremendous pres-sure
to pass tests, when they are far behind in their language development.
In Yancey County, the after school program is key to helping these youth
succeed. We also need more continual funding, so we don't have to find
other funds all the time.
S t a f f i n g
C o u n t y
Number of
employees
paid with
SOS money
To t a l
n u m b e r
o f
e m p l o y e e s
Number of
volunteers
used in an
a v e r a g e
w e e k
Annual
(36 weeks)
value of
volunteer's time
(at $15 per hour)
Alamance 6 8 8 $51,300
Alexander 6 8 0 $0
Alleghany 5 5 5 $5,400
Anson 20 20 4 $4,320
Ashe 4 18 40 $19,440
Avery 2 3 3 $21,600
Beaufort 5 11 4 $32,400
Bertie 6 8 2 $6,480
Bladen 7 13 10 $67,500
Brunswick 8 38 2 $5,400
Buncombe 2 5 2 $2,160
Burke 2 7 1 $1,080
Cabarrus 6 11 10 $15,120
Caldwell 3 4 4 $8,640
Camden 5 6 1 $1,620
Carteret 4 19 7 $10,800
Caswell 6 6 1 $1,080
S t a f f i n g
C o u n t y
Number of
employees
paid with
SOS money
To t a l
n u m b e r
o f
e m p l o y e e s
Number of
volunteers
used in an
a v e r a g e
w e e k
Annual
(36 weeks)
value of
volunteer's time
(at $15 per hour)
Catawba 2 5 12 $68,040
Chatham 5 9 2 $2,160
Cherokee 3 3 2 $1,620
Chowan 15 38 2 $2,160
Clay 6 12 6 $6,480
Cleveland 10 13 45 $27,000
Columbus 5 5 4 $2,700
Craven 6 6 4 $6,480
Cumberland 5 5 10 $10,000
Currituck 5 9 3 $1,620
Dare 4 7 1 $3,780
Davidson 6 10 12 $32,400
Davie 6 8 1 $1,620
Duplin 9 9 1 $1,080
Durham 40 72 35 $28,080
Edgecombe 8 8 20 $27,000
Forsyth 17 28 8 $4,860
S t a f f i n g
C o u n t y
Number of
employees
paid with
SOS money
To t a l
n u m b e r
o f
e m p l o y e e s
Number of
volunteers
used in an
a v e r a g e
w e e k
Annual
(36 weeks)
value of
volunteer's time
(at $15 per hour)
Franklin 2 2 1 $2,160
Gaston 9 24 49 $35,640
Gates 1 4 10 $5,940
Graham 6 9 6 $8,100
Granville 3 3 0 $0
Greene 8 8 4 $32,400
Guilford 17 32 14 $31,320
Halifax 18 20 11 $9,180
Harnett
Haywood 4 4 6 $6,480
Henderson 9 12 6 $21,384
Hertford 10 10 1 $1,620
Hoke
Hyde 10 11 2 $10,800
Iredell
Jackson 3 5 10 $6,480
Johnston 4 4 3 $3,240
S t a f f i n g
C o u n t y
Number of
employees
paid with
SOS money
To t a l
n u m b e r
o f
e m p l o y e e s
Number of
volunteers
used in an
a v e r a g e
w e e k
Annual
(36 weeks)
value of
volunteer's time
(at $15 per hour)
Jones 5 5 3 $3,240
Lee 0 5 2 $4,320
Lenoir 4 6 12 $162,000
Lincoln 7 13 12 $8,640
Macon 2 6 4 $25,920
Madison 3 4 10 $13,500
Martin 4 7 1 $540
McDowell 6 6 1 $4,860
Mecklenburg 6 20 25 $13,500
Mitchell 10 13 5 $18,900
Montgomery 22 34 4 $6,480
Moore 9 11 2 $4,320
Nash 11 11 3 $5,400
New Hanover 2 8 4 $16,200
Northampton 3 10 25 $27,000
Onslow 16 16 9 $4,320
Orange 7 50 46 $39,420
S t a f f i n g
C o u n t y
Number of
employees
paid with
SOS money
To t a l
n u m b e r
o f
e m p l o y e e s
Number of
volunteers
used in an
a v e r a g e
w e e k
Annual
(36 weeks)
value of
volunteer's time
(at $15 per hour)
Pamlico 0 6 3 $3,240
Pasquotank 3 10 10 $48,600
Pender 7 10 10 $21,600
Perquimans 14 17 16 $25,920
Person 7 8 1 $1,080
Pitt 18 18 15 $16,200
Polk 7 7 5 $3,240
Randolph 7 5 4 $1,080
Richmond 5 7 4 $8,100
Robeson 4 5 7 $12,037
Rockingham 9 12 40 $70,200
Rowan 2 2 2 $2,700
Rutherford 7 8 5 $5,940
Sampson 4 4 2 $3,240
Scotland
Stanly 12 16 5 $3,240
Stokes 4 4 3 $2,160
S t a f f i n g
C o u n t y
Number of
employees
paid with
SOS money
To t a l
n u m b e r
o f
e m p l o y e e s
Number of
volunteers
used in an
a v e r a g e
w e e k
Annual
(36 weeks)
value of
volunteer's time
(at $15 per hour)
Surry 3 5 6 $13,500
Swain 3 6 8 $10,800
Transylvania 7 8 7 $3,834
Tyrrell
Union 19 100 20 $10,800
Vance 6 6 5 $10,800
Wake 18 27 20 $11,070
Warren 3 18 3 $4,050
Washington 4 4 5 $12,960
Watauga 1 33 35 $47,520
Wayne 2 8 2 $2,700
Wilkes 3 32 2 $4,320
Wilson 5 5 12 $64,800
Yadkin 8 38 4 $6,480
Yancey 3 7 10 $24,300
NC SOS 665 1246 834 $1,471,235
Cost per Student per Hour
C o u n t y
SOS
G r a n t
Percent of
b u d g e t
from out-side
SOS
( e x c l u d-ing
fees)
C o s t /
s t u d e n t /
hour in
SOS
d o l l a r s
Total hours
all sites
were open
in an aver-age
week
during the
school year
Alamance $70,000 0% $2.00 17
Alexander $70,000 24% $1.43 14
Alleghany $75,000 0% $1.96 16
Anson $65,000 2% $1.34 14
Ashe $65,000 80% $0.15 158
Avery $75,000 28% $2.13 23
Beaufort $75,000 72% $0.10 96
Bertie $75,000 0% $3.12 12
Bladen $99,000 35% $0.82 81
Brunswick $81,000 79% $0.33 169
Buncombe $75,000 0% $1.66 53
Burke $65,000 47% $0.70 48
Cabarrus $65,000 47% $1.30 62
Caldwell $75,000 41% $1.63 34
Camden $75,000 0% $5.00 12
Cost per Student per Hour
C o u n t y
SOS
G r a n t
Percent of
b u d g e t
from out-side
SOS
( e x c l u d-ing
fees)
C o s t /
s t u d e n t /
hour in
SOS
d o l l a r s
Total hours
all sites
were open
in an aver-age
week
during the
school year
Carteret $75,000 82% $1.07 17
Caswell $75,000 0% $4.34 14
Catawba $75,000 0% $2.53 17
Chatham $65,000 30% $3.37 28
Cherokee $81,000 14% $1.53 53
Chowan $74,500 17% $0.94 16
Clay $75,000 73% $1.70 14
Cleveland $75,000 44% $1.40 29
Columbus $74,666 47% $1.96 23
Craven $74,666 6% $2.10 17
Cumberland $75,000 0% $0.00 40
Currituck $70,000 30% $2.79 20
Dare $65,000 16% $0.81 45
Davidson $75,000 23% $2.17 70
Davie $75,000 3% $4.42 15
Cost per Student per Hour
C o u n t y
SOS
G r a n t
Percent of
b u d g e t
from out-side
SOS
( e x c l u d-ing
fees)
C o s t /
s t u d e n t /
hour in
SOS
d o l l a r s
Total hours
all sites
were open
in an aver-age
week
during the
school year
Duplin $75,000 0% $2.29 8
Durham $159,830 29% $0.38 149
Edgecombe $75,000 67% $2.99 34
Forsyth $237,000 38% $1.14 45
Franklin $70,000 3% $2.99 11
Gaston $75,000 89% $0.99 54
Gates $65,000 45% $1.93 9
Graham $65,546 4% $0.87 33
Granville $65,000 0% $2.20 44
Greene $64,926 47% $0.96 59
Guilford $189,101 57% $1.60 95
Halifax $75,000 0% $0.72 41
Harnett $65,000
Haywood $70,000 5% $1.31 45
Henderson $75,000 0% $0.24 27
Cost per Student per Hour
C o u n t y
SOS
G r a n t
Percent of
b u d g e t
from out-side
SOS
( e x c l u d-ing
fees)
C o s t /
s t u d e n t /
hour in
SOS
d o l l a r s
Total hours
all sites
were open
in an aver-age
week
during the
school year
Hertford $75,000 0% $2.42 11
Hoke $75,000 no data no data
Hyde $75,000 0% $2.20 14
Iredell $95,000 no data no data no data
Jackson $66,400 15% $6.32 41
Johnston $75,000 47% $1.98 29
Jones $65,000 1% $3.42 27
Lee $75,000 0% $0.64 23
Lenoir $80,000 0% $1.43 30
Lincoln $91,000 74% $2.01 68
Macon $75,000 0% $3.17 32
Madison $65,000 12% $1.05 14
Martin $95,000 37% $1.70 18
McDowell $75,000 10% $5.11 27
Mecklenburg $230,000 82% $1.20 258
Cost per Student per Hour
C o u n t y
SOS
G r a n t
Percent of
b u d g e t
from out-side
SOS
( e x c l u d-ing
fees)
C o s t /
s t u d e n t /
hour in
SOS
d o l l a r s
Total hours
all sites
were open
in an aver-age
week
during the
school year
Mitchell $85,000 2% $2.60 55
Montgomery $75,000 4% $1.10 45
Moore $75,000 14% $3.17 16
Nash $75,000 47% $4.17 23
New Hanover $75,000 65% $0.73 20
Northampton $75,000 8% $2.25 14
Onslow $75,000 1% $1.17 10
Orange $70,000 51% $0.08 135
Pamlico $75,000 0% $0.98 14
Pasquotank $75,000 1% $1.98 17
Pender $75,000 6% $2.67 17
Perquimans $75,000 0% $2.31 7
Person $64,800 16% $2.34 27
Pitt $213,986 48% $0.71 39
Polk $75,000 0% $1.02 14
Cost per Student per Hour
C o u n t y
SOS
G r a n t
Percent of
b u d g e t
from out-side
SOS
( e x c l u d-ing
fees)
C o s t /
s t u d e n t /
hour in
SOS
d o l l a r s
Total hours
all sites
were open
in an aver-age
week
during the
school year
Randolph $70,000 0% $0.83 27
Richmond $75,000 44% $2.04 11
Robeson $75,000 0% $2.52 27
Rockingham $81,000 0% $1.52 63
Rowan $75,000 20% $11.57 23
Rutherford $75,000 0% $1.74 36
Sampson $75,000 47% $3.22 27
Scotland $75,000 0% $5.25 12
Stanly $75,000 12% $1.23 30
Stokes $65,000 38% $1.67 14
Surry $75,000 0% $0.75 17
Swain $75,000 44% $1.56 28
Transylvania $75,000 3% $0.72 31
Tyrrell $75,000 0% $0.96 15
Union $95,000 0% $0.22 59
Cost per Student per Hour
C o u n t y
SOS
G r a n t
Percent of
b u d g e t
from out-side
SOS
( e x c l u d-ing
fees)
C o s t /
s t u d e n t /
hour in
SOS
d o l l a r s
Total hours
all sites
were open
in an aver-age
week
during the
school year
Vance $70,000 0% $8.01 15
9Wake $249,990 44% $0.73 90
Warren $75,000 4% $2.66 10
Washington $75,000 47% $2.41 18
Watauga $60,000 47% $0.74 201
Wayne $74,609 57% $1.70 24
Wilkes $65,272 82% $0.16 28
Wilson $66,500 15% $1.06 23
Yadkin $65,000 38% $0.77 47
Yancey $65,000 22% $1.95 27
NC SOS $8,264,962 44% $1.90 3803
C o u n t y
P e r c e n t
F e m a l e
P e r c e n t
F e m a l e
Percent
African
American
P e r c e n t
W h i t e
P e r c e n t
O t h e r
Alamance 45% 55% 98% 2% 0%
Alexander 42% 58% 19% 65% 15%
Alleghany 55% 45% 0% 92% 8%
Anson 62% 38% 94% 6% 0%
Ashe 49% 51% 1% 92% 7%
Avery 45% 55% 4% 90% 6%
Beaufort 44% 56% 95% 3% 2%
Bertie 65% 35% 97% 3% 0%
Bladen 52% 48% 68% 28% 5%
Brunswick 51% 49% 17% 77% 6%
Buncombe 53% 48% 44% 54% 3%
Burke 51% 49% 3% 96% 1%
Cabarrus 44% 56% 33% 60% 7%
Caldwell 65% 35% 73% 26% 1%
Camden 37% 63% 40% 60% 0%
Carteret 42% 58% 36% 58% 5%
Caswell 53% 48% 40% 53% 8%
Gender and Race
C o u n t y
P e r c e n t
F e m a l e
P e r c e n t
F e m a l e
Percent
African
American
P e r c e n t
W h i t e
P e r c e n t
O t h e r
Catawba 42% 58% 96% 4% 0%
Chatham 49% 51% 45% 7% 48%
Cherokee 65% 35% 1% 91% 7%
Chowan 53% 47% 75% 23% 1%
Clay 41% 59% 0% 100% 0%
Cleveland 45% 55% 28% 70% 3%
Columbus 49% 51% 98% 0% 2%
Craven 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%
Cumberland 40% 60% 100% 0% 0%
Currituck 70% 30% 14% 83% 2%
Dare 41% 59% 5% 90% 5%
Davidson 45% 55% 32% 61% 6%
Davie 42% 58% 6% 42% 52%
Duplin 41% 59% 15% 45% 40%
Durham 53% 47% 75% 16% 10%
Edgecombe 37% 63% 82% 14% 4%
Forsyth 47% 53% 64% 26% 9%
Gender and Race
C o u n t y
P e r c e n t
F e m a l e
P e r c e n t
F e m a l e
Percent
African
American
P e r c e n t
W h i t e
P e r c e n t
O t h e r
Franklin 48% 52% 52% 31% 17%
Gaston 61% 39% 92% 8% 0%
Gates 62% 38% 79% 21% 1%
Graham 49% 51% 1% 89% 10%
Granville 45% 55% 42% 56% 2%
Greene 43% 57% 66% 30% 4%
Guilford 60% 40% 79% 14% 6%
Halifax 48% 52% 91% 1% 8%
Harnett 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Haywood 41% 59% 5% 95% 0%
Henderson 48% 52% 35% 31% 34%
Hertford 59% 41% 94% 5% 1%
Hoke
Hyde 48% 52% 78% 16% 5%
Iredell
Jackson 54% 46% 0% 46% 54%
Johnston 59% 41% 40% 26% 35%
Gender and Race
C o u n t y
P e r c e n t
F e m a l e
P e r c e n t
F e m a l e
Percent
African
American
P e r c e n t
W h i t e
P e r c e n t
O t h e r
Jones 45% 55% 100% 0% 0%
Lee 48% 52% 96% 3% 1%
Lenoir 64% 36% 90% 8% 2%
Lincoln 43% 57% 19% 75% 6%
Macon 38% 62% 0% 91% 9%
Madison 45% 55% 0% 97% 3%
Martin 51% 49% 85% 9% 6%
McDowell 35% 65% 3% 91% 6%
Mecklenburg 54% 46% 90% 1% 9%
Mitchell 57% 43% 0% 99% 1%
Montgomery 58% 42% 66% 11% 23%
Moore 57% 43% 72% 26% 2%
Nash 52% 48% 88% 12% 0%
New Hanover 45% 55% 73% 20% 8%
Northampton 43% 57% 97% 3% 0%
Onslow 56% 44% 57% 26% 17%
Orange 46% 54% 32% 52% 16%
Gender and Race
C o u n t y
P e r c e n t
F e m a l e
P e r c e n t
F e m a l e
Percent
African
American
P e r c e n t
W h i t e
P e r c e n t
O t h e r
Pamlico 51% 49% 72% 25% 3%
Pasquotank 63% 37% 99% 1% 0%
Pender 37% 63% 100% 0% 0%
Perquimans 56% 44% 50% 49% 1%
Person 56% 44% 62% 38% 0%
Pitt 47% 53% 85% 13% 2%
Polk 58% 42% 12% 86% 2%
Randolph 50% 50% 15% 79% 6%
Richmond 58% 42% 100% 0% 0%
Robeson 55% 45% 4% 0% 96%
Rockingham 55% 45% 37% 57% 7%
Rowan 61% 39% 56% 33% 11%
Rutherford 65% 35% 30% 69% 1%
Sampson 61% 39% 76% 24% 0%
Scotland 56% 44% 78% 14% 8%
Stanly 44% 56% 76% 21% 3%
Stokes 60% 40% 12% 88% 0%
Gender and Race
C o u n t y
P e r c e n t
F e m a l e
P e r c e n t
F e m a l e
Percent
African
American
P e r c e n t
W h i t e
P e r c e n t
O t h e r
Surry 52% 48% 23% 66% 10%
Swain 48% 52% 0% 76% 24%
Transylvania 48% 52% 8% 88% 5%
Tyrrell 39% 61% 92% 0% 8%
Union 50% 50% 50% 10% 41%
Vance 48% 52% 82% 14% 4%
Wake 49% 51% 40% 56% 5%
Warren 46% 54% 89% 9% 2%
Washington 43% 57% 93% 7% 0%
Watauga 50% 50% 2% 94% 4%
Wayne 51% 49% 88% 11% 1%
Wilkes 45% 55% 5% 93% 2%
Wilson 63% 37% 94% 6% 0%
Yadkin 49% 51% 8% 88% 4%
Yancey 40% 60% 3% 23% 74%
NC SOS 50% 50% 49% 42% 9%
Gender and Race
C o u n t y
Percent of
p a r t i c i p a n t s
who live
with both
p a r e n t s
P e r c e n t
f r e e /
r e d u c e d
l u n c h
P e r c e n t
whose par-ents
have
e d u c a t i o n
beyond high
s c h o o l
Percent
s p e c i a l
e d u c a t i o n
( e x c l u d i n g
g i f t e d )
P e r c e n t
g i f t e d
Alamance 25% 52% 40% 16% 8%
Alexander 58% 59% 22% 20% 6%
Alleghany 71% 61% 30% 13% 9%
Anson 30% 88% 29% 5% 0%
Ashe 74% 38% 60% 10% 24%
Avery 45% 90% 7% 30% 3%
Beaufort 23% 86% 28% 16% 5%
Bertie 14% 99% 33% 3% 10%
Bladen 42% 78% 34% 8% 2%
Brunswick 47% 46% 43% 16% 7%
Buncombe 46% 45% 41% 24% 4%
Burke 57% 22% 41% 19% 14%
Cabarrus 47% 34% 45% 23% 10%
Caldwell 0% 81% 12% 5% 3%
Camden 40% 63% 40% 13% 6%
Carteret 47% 57% 42% 24% 12%
Demographic Information
C o u n t y
Percent of
p a r t i c i p a n t s
who live
with both
p a r e n t s
P e r c e n t
f r e e /
r e d u c e d
l u n c h
P e r c e n t
whose par-ents
have
e d u c a t i o n
beyond high
s c h o o l
Percent
s p e c i a l
e d u c a t i o n
( e x c l u d i n g
g i f t e d )
P e r c e n t
g i f t e d
Caswell 25% 51% 32% 19% 6%
Catawba 17% 70% 30% 17% 9%
Chatham 62% 90% 50% 30% 10%
Cherokee 41% 71% 41% 11% 22%
Chowan 28% 73% 13% 20% 1%
Clay 42% 93% 51% 7% 2%
Cleveland 35% 58% 23% 23% 3%
Columbus 19% 90% 12% 20% 0%
Craven 18% 66% 46% 12% 5%
Cumberland 11% 84% 38% 8% 4%
Currituck 48% 36% 27% 21% 11%
Dare 36% 20% 48% 16% 8%
Davidson 40% 31% 53% 14% 9%
Davie 87% 31% 62% 8% 0%
Duplin 58% 68% 21% 20% 3%
Durham 36% 44% 58% 16% 21%
Demographic Information
C o u n t y
Percent of
p a r t i c i p a n t s
who live
with both
p a r e n t s
P e r c e n t
f r e e /
r e d u c e d
l u n c h
P e r c e n t
whose par-ents
have
e d u c a t i o n
beyond high
s c h o o l
Percent
s p e c i a l
e d u c a t i o n
( e x c l u d i n g
g i f t e d )
P e r c e n t
g i f t e d
Edgecombe 17% 88% 12% 18% 0%
Forsyth 28% 85% 45% 11% 8%
Franklin 58% 48% 44% 10% 10%
Gaston 18% 86% 22% 12% 7%
Gates 73% 60% 44% 15% 9%
Graham 50% 52% 31% 15% 4%
Granville 55% 33% 52% 10% 9%
Greene 38% 67% 26% 28% 5%
Guilford 36% 69% 31% 22% 7%
Halifax 35% 85% 30% 15% 6%
Harnett 0% 0%
Haywood 54% 52% 52% 10% 10%
Henderson 34% 90% 33% 17% 2%
Hertford 46% 71% 39% 23% 15%
Hoke
Hyde 35% 87% 19% 24% 4%
Demographic Information
C o u n t y
Percent of
p a r t i c i p a n t s
who live
with both
p a r e n t s
P e r c e n t
f r e e /
r e d u c e d
l u n c h
P e r c e n t
whose par-ents
have
e d u c a t i o n
beyond high
s c h o o l
Percent
s p e c i a l
e d u c a t i o n
( e x c l u d i n g
g i f t e d )
P e r c e n t
g i f t e d
Iredell
Jackson 38% 57% 28% 21% 8%
Johnston 49% 100% 27% 13% 5%
Jones 30% 88% 42% 13% 8%
Lee 25% 85% 25% 16% 5%
Lenoir 21% 82% 27% 7% 2%
Lincoln 32% 32% 54% 20% 7%
Macon 28% 50% 43% 10% 7%
Madison 52% 69% 26% 22% 14%
Martin 57% 80% 17% 9% 9%
McDowell 41% 36% 43% 14% 10%
Mecklenburg 14% 71% 42% 24% 8%
Mitchell 49% 76% 46% 14% 10%
Montgomery 40% 74% 14% 17% 6%
Moore 32% 72% 25% 46% 4%
Nash 56% 64% 35% 22% 5%
Demographic Information
C o u n t y
Percent of
p a r t i c i p a n t s
who live
with both
p a r e n t s
P e r c e n t
f r e e /
r e d u c e d
l u n c h
P e r c e n t
whose par-ents
have
e d u c a t i o n
beyond high
s c h o o l
Percent
s p e c i a l
e d u c a t i o n
( e x c l u d i n g
g i f t e d )
P e r c e n t
g i f t e d
New Hanover 43% 78% 33% 13% 1%
Northampton 40% 94% 39% 17% 0%
Onslow 44% 58% 24% 21% 1%
Orange 60% 36% 73% 13% 30%
Pamlico 31% 73% 27% 18% 13%
Pasquotank 36% 88% 32% 8% 8%
Pender 38% 100% 21% 29% 4%
Perquimans 46% 70% 33% 9% 3%
Person 16% 59% 29% 30% 0%
Pitt 25% 77% 26% 19% 1%
Polk 60% 34% 38% 17% 9%
Randolph 41% 30% 38% 13% 2%
Richmond 40% 76% 28% 16% 0%
Robeson 61% 39% 63% 8% 17%
Rockingham 38% 66% 20% 27% 1%
Rowan 33% 63% 31% 6% 0%
Demographic Information
C o u n t y
Percent of
p a r t i c i p a n t s
who live
with both
p a r e n t s
P e r c e n t
f r e e /
r e d u c e d
l u n c h
P e r c e n t
whose par-ents
have
e d u c a t i o n
beyond high
s c h o o l
Percent
s p e c i a l
e d u c a t i o n
( e x c l u d i n g
g i f t e d )
P e r c e n t
g i f t e d
Rutherford 39% 55% 29% 14% 5%
Sampson 28% 78% 29% 11% 3%
Scotland 44% 81% 19% 23% 4%
Stanly 30% 65% 33% 23% 6%
Stokes 54% 44% 35% 10% 13%
Surry 46% 51% 35% 17% 11%
Swain 50% 57% 37% 18% 10%
Transylvania 49% 35% 44% 17% 14%
Tyrrell 30% 71% 24% 0% 10%
Union 81% 72% 19% 10% 7%
Vance 38% 60% 38% 23% 17%
Wake 58% 39% 54% 21% 8%
Warren 48% 80% 25% 12% 0%
Washington 31% 79% 14% 28% 0%
Watauga 56% 31% 66% 23% 20%
Wayne 35% 41% 41% 2% 7%
Demographic Information
C o u n t y
Percent of
p a r t i c i p a n t s
who live
with both
p a r e n t s
P e r c e n t
f r e e /
r e d u c e d
l u n c h
P e r c e n t
whose par-ents
have
e d u c a t i o n
beyond high
s c h o o l
Percent
s p e c i a l
e d u c a t i o n
( e x c l u d i n g
g i f t e d )
P e r c e n t
g i f t e d
Wilkes 54% 41% 42% 12% 9%
Wilson 20% 82% 39% 5% 4%
Yadkin 52% 34% 45% 20% 12%
Yancey 96% 83% 7% 21% 7%
NC SOS 43% 59% 37% 16% 8%
Demographic Information
C o u n t y
Percentages of 2002–2003 participants
who scored at grade level or better in…
M a t h R e a d i n g
2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3
Alamance 66% 83% 58% 80%
Alexander 85% 76% 62% 70%
Alleghany 96% 97% 91% 94%
Anson 69% 58% 58% 70%
Ashe 91% 98% 86% 94%
Avery 86% 89% 91% 89%
Beaufort 84% 88% 66% 76%
Bertie 71% 88% 50% 78%
Bladen 84% 84% 62% 75%
Brunswick 85% 91% 76% 86%
Buncombe 81% 85% 76% 85%
Burke 93% 93% 87% 86%
Cabarrus 82% 87% 75% 85%
Caldwell 78% 79% 70% 86%
Camden 93% 87% 79% 93%
Carteret 81% 84% 77% 84%
Academic Outcomes-EOG
C o u n t y
Percentages of 2002–2003 participants
who scored at grade level or better in…
M a t h R e a d i n g
2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3
Caswell 63% 72% 48% 63%
Catawba 68% 83% 55% 57%
Chatham
Cherokee 98% 94% 87% 94%
Chowan 67% 73% 43% 61%
Clay 94% 96% 90% 91%
Cleveland 66% 92% 73% 80%
Columbus 75% 61% 55% 61%
Craven 78% 93% 71% 80%
Cumberland 89% 93% 53% 78%
Currituck 91% 90% 90% 93%
Dare 93% 90% 89% 94%
Davidson 90% 95% 85% 95%
Davie 73% 92% 79% 92%
Duplin 64% 87% 50% 92%
Durham 72% 79% 68% 80%
Academic Outcomes-EOG
C o u n t y
Percentages of 2002–2003 participants
who scored at grade level or better in…
M a t h R e a d i n g
2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3
Edgecombe 56% 65% 46% 58%
Forsyth 69% 81% 60% 73%
Franklin 69% 81% 65% 77%
Gaston 80% 86% 63% 79%
Gates 89% 98% 72% 99%
Graham 93% 93% 88% 90%
Granville 89% 87% 76% 88%
Greene 72% 72% 57% 65%
Guilford 70% 84% 57% 76%
Halifax 82% 84% 71% 75%
Harnett 86% 90% 75% 81%
Haywood 78% 95% 69% 85%
Henderson 91% 96% 80% 87%
Hertford 76% 74% 55% 62%
Hoke
Hyde 81% 75% 59% 77%
Academic Outcomes-EOG
C o u n t y
Percentages of 2002–2003 participants
who scored at grade level or better in…
M a t h R e a d i n g
2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3
Iredell 71% 72% 57% 58%
Jackson 81% 88% 73% 79%
Johnston 90% 83% 80% 78%
Jones 76% 96% 63% 61%
Lee 77% 83% 64% 72%
Lenoir 83% 78% 64% 81%
Lincoln 85% 86% 68% 78%
Macon 80% 95% 89% 96%
Madison 86% 84% 82% 79%
Martin 81% 84% 67% 85%
McDowell 89% 93% 91% 90%
Mecklenburg 67% 97% 60% 75%
Mitchell 86% 87% 81% 89%
Montgomery 69% 66% 48% 64%
Moore 81% 92% 65% 78%
Nash 79% 82% 64% 76%
Academic Outcomes-EOG
C o u n t y
Percentages of 2002–2003 participants
who scored at grade level or better in…
M a t h R e a d i n g
2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3
New Hanover 74% 85% 55% 67%
Northampton 90% 83% 61% 72%
Onslow 87% 88% 76% 86%
Orange 84% 95% 80% 80%
Pamlico 71% 95% 56% 79%
Pasquotank 63% 75% 49% 79%
Pender 72% 74% 61% 75%
Perquimans 86% 84% 63% 82%
Person 87% 92% 59% 76%
Pitt 82% 87% 68% 78%
Polk 90% 91% 84% 89%
Randolph 66% 87% 52% 89%
Richmond 80% 77% 59% 76%
Robeson 91% 93% 73% 87%
Rockingham 67% 70% 51% 75%
Rowan 78% 81% 67% 75%
Academic Outcomes-EOG
C o u n t y
Percentages of 2002–2003 participants
who scored at grade level or better in…
M a t h R e a d i n g
2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3
Rutherford 81% 92% 73% 84%
Sampson 79% 96% 67% 77%
Scotland 59% 80% 45% 68%
Stanly 84% 80% 75% 74%
Stokes 65% 79% 78% 81%
Surry 95% 93% 78% 95%
Swain 79% 86% 73% 86%
Transylvania 99% 96% 91% 86%
Tyrrell 73% 85% 63% 60%
Union 91% 93% 71% 75%
Vance 69% 74% 70% 77%
Wake 82% 83% 78% 75%
Warren 66% 72% 50% 73%
Washington 43% 56% 35% 37%
Watauga 92% 94% 89% 95%
Wayne 74% 96% 69% 87%
Academic Outcomes-EOG
C o u n t y
Percentages of 2002–2003 participants
who scored at grade level or better in…
M a t h R e a d i n g
2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3
Wilkes 93% 98% 87% 91%
Wilson 80% 89% 68% 87%
Yadkin 86% 94% 80% 80%
Yancey 91% 92% 81% 80%
NC SOS 82% 85% 66% 80%
Academic Outcomes-EOG
r
Roster Information
C o u n t y
2000-2001
Roster
Count
2001-2002
Roster
Count
2002-2003
Roster
Count
Rank by
Size:
“1” is
largest
Number of
Regular
Attendees
2001- 2003
Average
Daily
Attendance
2002- 2003
Percent of
participants
with more
than 1 year
in SOS
2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 3
Alamance 61 62 55 81 49 35 22%
Alexander 87 113 39 101 40 21%
Alleghany 55 76 68 68 50 0%
Anson 118 112 112 40 55 50 22%
Ashe 243 198 432 9 138 189 50%
Avery 29 50 49 87 30 18 73%
Beaufort 573 468 486 4 100 165 91%
Bertie 73 67 72 70 64 58 60%
Bladen 324 325 279 13 273 187 46%
Brunswick 121 406 458 7 144 163 32%
Buncombe 215 107 80 63 72 60 16%
Burke 80 130 122 34 107 52 33%
Cabarrus 113 139 101 49 90 36 30%
Caldwell 87 85 59 43 77 45%
Camden 68 62 77 27 24 42%
Carteret 60 98 130 30 114 85 26%
Program Over Time
Students in the Program
Snapshot
Roster Information
C o u n t y
2000-2001
Roster
Count
2001-2002
Roster
Count
2002-2003
Roster
Count
Rank by
Size:
“1” is
largest
Number of
Regular
Attendees
2001- 2003
Average
Daily
Attendance
2002- 2003
Percent of
participants
with more
than 1 year
in SOS
2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 3
Caswell 88 40 91 25 30 8%
Catawba 63 196 55 81 44 30 44%
Chatham 104 72 157 24 141 129 8%
Cherokee 108 132 94 52 76 58 52%
Chowan 150 148 158 23 142 65 44%
Clay 110 102 47 60 35 44%
Cleveland 113 117 35 36 94 13%
Columbus 49 77 53 84 48 40 66%
Craven 140 134 66 73 66 51 58%
Cumberland 63 71 57 79 51 46 58%
Currituck 57 124 83 61 43 40 27%
Dare 25 89 111 42 52 39 37%
Davidson 69 82 62 77 60 51 31%
Davie 41 31 97 27 24 29%
Duplin 44 130 30 117 27 18%
Durham 1049 1246 1052 2 639 473 31%
Program Over Time
Students in the Program
Snapshot
Roster Information
C o u n t y
2000-2001
Roster
Count
2001-2002
Roster
Count
2002-2003
Roster
Count
Rank by
Size:
“1” is
largest
Number of
Regular
Attendees
2001- 2003
Average
Daily
Attendance
2002- 2003
Percent of
participants
with more
than 1 year
in SOS
2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 3
Edgecombe 230 199 93 53 81 69 37%
Forsyth 243 378 288 12 259 40 22%
Franklin 109 65 75 65 34 9%
Gaston 82 110 88 55 79 80 30%
Gates 121 119 117 35 117 36 14%
Graham 90 166 142 27 54 50 35%
Granville 159 149 105 46 51 74 36%
Greene 55 102 107 43 30 49 35%
Guilford 268 291 235 14 172 137 19%
Halifax 166 274 322 11 104 103 42%
Harnett
Haywood 51 37 93 33 16 24%
Henderson 168 314 356 10 218 132 56%
Hertford 89 86 58 40 34 30%
Hoke 104 0 0 0 0%
Hyde 76 79 64 71 25 41%
Program Over Time
Students in the Program
Snapshot
Roster Information
C o u n t y
2000-2001
Roster
Count
2001-2002
Roster
Count
2002-2003
Roster
Count
Rank by
Size:
“1” is
largest
Number of
Regular
Attendees
2001- 2003
Average
Daily
Attendance
2002- 2003
Percent of
participants
with more
than 1 year
in SOS
2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 3
Iredell 152 188
Jackson 68 108 124 33 21 84 58%
Johnston 116 133 81 62 50 46 38%
Jones 165 56 44 90 44 41 0%
Lee 83 126 163 22 97 30 51%
Lenoir 53 47 115 38 86 64 30%
Lincoln 87 93 84 60 50 43 33%
Macon 56 60 47 88 35 32 51%
Madison 100 96 143 26 55 45 29%
Martin 139 190 97 51 87 24 48%
McDowell 45 65 34 96 34 33 35%
Mecklenburg 107 133 232 15 221 123 53%
Mitchell 379 132 74 69 35 28 51%
Montgomery 175 149 142 27 122 132 32%
Moore 91 68 47 88 45 45 15%
Nash 58 132 50 86 45 34 14%
Program Over Time
Students in the Program
Snapshot
Roster Information
C o u n t y
2000-2001
Roster
Count
2001-2002
Roster
Count
2002-2003
Roster
Count
Rank by
Size:
“1” is
largest
Number of
Regular
Attendees
2001- 2003
Average
Daily
Attendance
2002- 2003
Percent of
participants
with more
than 1 year
in SOS
2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 3
New Hanover 74 60 40 91 24 22 35%
Northampton 87 96 77 66 68 32 32%
Onslow 258 234 198 18 190 45 32%
Orange 1051 1401 1680 1 540 899 39%
Pamlico 169 178 20 78 43 51%
Pasquotank 63 63 70 71 58 40 9%
Pender 63 56 52 85 43 25 73%
Perquimans 243 230 150 25 100 70 43%
Person 84 69 64 76 57 32 41%
Pitt 495 597 484 5 191 48 71%
Polk 170 171 21 101 55 40%
Randolph 29 98 50 88 12 3%
Richmond 89 87 102 47 91 60 53%
Robeson 81 74 69 72 63 60 42%
Rockingham 115 141 106 45 72 71 17%
Rowan 80 119 37 93 16 35 22%
Program Over Time
Students in the Program
Snapshot
Roster Information
C o u n t y
2000-2001
Roster
Count
2001-2002
Roster
Count
2002-2003
Roster
Count
Rank by
Size:
“1” is
largest
Number of
Regular
Attendees
2001- 2003
Average
Daily
Attendance
2002- 2003
Percent of
participants
with more
than 1 year
in SOS
2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 3
Rutherford 219 159 112 40 72 57 19%
Sampson 43 77 78 65 53 74 48%
Scotland 65 51 36 95 32 29 78%
Stanly 101 125 32 112 63 22%
Stokes 0 201 90 54 81 74 10%
Surry 127 139 186 19 52 45 31%
Swain 92 107 43 63 70 21%
Transylvania 100 192 210 17 60 34 30%
Tyrrell 79 66 73 59 54 67%
Union 147 192 227 16 227 110 41%
Vance 61 56 80 50 30 30%
Wake 430 746 717 3 408 333 37%
Warren 80 110 87 56 78 25 0%
Washington 63 72 54 83 54 45 0%
Watauga 46 124 138 29 94 125 22%
Wayne 327 335 116 37 80 80 37%
Program Over Time
Students in the Program
Snapshot
Roster Information
C o u n t y
2000-2001
Roster
Count
2001-2002
Roster
Count
2002-2003
Roster
Count
Rank by
Size:
“1” is
largest
Number of
Regular
Attendees
2001- 2003
Average
Daily
Attendance
2002- 2003
Percent of
participants
with more
than 1 year
in SOS
2 0 0 2 – 2 0 0 3
Wilkes 398 462 463 6 178 187 41%
Wilson 100 97 87 56 75 70 25%
Yadkin 465 449 448 8 412 281 63%
Yancey 77 77 66 61 45 51%
Total during
school year
12,840 16,829 15,733 9,584 7,584 38%
Program Over Time
Students in the Program
Snapshot
C o u n t y
Percentage of the 2002–2003 regular attending (at
least 30 days) program participants whose grades
improved, stayed the same, or decreased
E n g l i s h M a t h
%
I m p r o v e d
%
Unchanged
%
Decreased
%
I m p r o v e d
%
Unchanged
%
Decreased
Alamance
Alexander
Alleghany 68% 0% 32% 82% 0% 18%
Anson 28% 46% 26% 28% 46% 26%
Ashe 60% 39% 1% 56% 43% 2%
Avery 23% 27% 50% 59% 18% 23%
Beaufort 29% 61% 10% 20% 71% 9%
Bertie
Bladen 87% 12% 2% 82% 16% 1%
Brunswick 54% 45% 1% 59% 40% 2%
Buncombe 16% 81% 3% 14% 81