How Much Does Your Smart Start Administrator Make?

A Civitas investigation reveals large compensation packages and salaries in the Smart Start organization which account for a large portion of the reported administrative overhead of 11% of the program. High salaries are particularly pronounced in many of Smart Start key administrators’ compensation. For example, a recent IRS filing shows North Carolina Partnership for Children (NCPC) (Smart Start) President Stephanie Fanjul earning $173,814 in total compensation, including benefits. Large compensation packages extend throughout the Smart Start infrastructure, as seen in the compensation figures below.

These compensation packages divert critical resources from needy children to well funded administrative salaries. As a reference point, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who heads the agency through which the Smart Start funds flow and oversees a budget of $3.9 billion earns a salary of $120,000 plus benefits. In contrast, NCPC President Fanjul oversees a $188 million budget and earns $145,935 in salary alone. Fanjul’s salary is more than Governor Bev Perdue’s.

Below is a chart with the total compensation figures for top earning Smart Start administrators. Data for this chart was derived from public records requests and the most up to date IRS 990 forms available (2008/2009 and 2009/2010 form depending on availability). Total compensation includes salary plus the value of benefits, such as health insurance, retirement contributions, etc. Civitas studied 65 of the existing 77 local partnerships, as well as the state organization known as NCPC. The cutoff for the below chart was derived from the average 2008 -2009 private sector compensation for North Carolina workers of approximately $55,000.

For a longer list of positions and payroll, see below. Note: Figures may not include total benefit amounts.

Name Job Title Smart Start Organization Total Annual Compensation
Stephanie Fanjul President State $173,814
Eve Hansen Executive Director Cumberland $120,370
Pamela Dowdy Executive Director Wake $115,154
Ron Bradford Executive Director Buncombe $112,506
Leslie Karlsson Senior Dir. Finance and Operations State $110,000
Jane Myer  Executive Director Mecklenburg $108,293
Heniretta Zalakind Executive Director Nash & Edgecombe  $106,635
Pauline Mckee Executive Director Randolph $103,420
Susan Perry-Manning Senior Director for Policy and Programs State $102,000
Connie Holton Finance Director State $98,981
Marie Clark Chief Financial Officer Cumberland $98,886
James Dodson Information Technology Director State $98,837
Victoria Byrd Executive Director Sampson  $98,693
Linda Blanton Planning, Development & Communications Director Cumberland $97,785
Magda Baligh Executive Director Halifax  $97,145
Lynn Vick Child Care Resource & Referral Director Cumberland $96,609
Chuck Kraft Executive Director Forsyth  $94,700
Cindy Watkins Executive Director Alamance $94,087
Keith Sylvester Executive Director Lenoir & Greene $94,069
Larry Kowalski Finance/Contracts Manager Buncombe $92,353
Jean Goodman Executive Director Guilford $91,663
Marta Koesling Executive Director Iredell $90,273
Linda Leonard Executive Director Davidson $89,052
Alvin Keller Information Technology Director Cumberland $88,944
Scott Lodder Systems Analyst State $88,820
Dwight Morris Executive Director Johnston  $88,706
Janet Nelson Executive Director New Hanover $87,044
Ann Benfield Executive Director Cabarrus  $86,799
Martha Brown Executive Director Richmond  $84,565
Norma Boyd Executive Director Jones  $84,101
Rose Powers Program Administrator Cumberland $82,207
Tina Newcomb Communications & Development Administrator Cumberland $82,183
Margaret Samuels Executive Director Orange  $81,387
Tom Mitchell/Christine Bauer Financial Consultant State $80,672
Gary Carr Controller Wake $80,429
Marjorie Barroso Accounting and Contracting Manager State $80,224
Elizabeth Santana QEI/ More at Four Director Wake $80,212
Cathy Taylor Executive Director Cleveland  $80,173
Marie Lilly Controller Cumberland $79,600
Denauvo Robinson Executive Director Albermarle  $78,749
  Executive Director Stokes $78,493
  Executive Director Franklin-Granville-Vance $78,257
  Finance Director/Contracts Manager Iredell $78,215
Amy Barry Program Manager Buncombe $77,964
Shelia Orth Executive Director Martin-Pitt  $77,275
  Executive Director Dare $77,143
Anna Troutman Director Program Coordination & Evaluation Wake $76,389
Elaine Scarborough Executive Director Anson  $76,308
  Executive Director Burke  $76,212
  Finance Manager Stokes $76,193
Dawn Rochelle Executive Director Onslow  $75,265
Leslie Moss CCR&R Manager Buncombe $75,161
Lois Slade State Training and Support Manager State $74,278
Jeri Arledge Executive Director Caldwell  $74,255
  Director of Family Support Services Iredell $73,983
Sandra Roberts Finance Director Durham $72,900
Linda Gironda Executive Director Brunswick $72,747
Carrie Stone Program Director Alamance $72,554
Don Magoon Executive Director Wayne  $72,131
  Director of School Readiness Iredell $72,011
  Program Manager Cabarrus  $71,340
Lyn Hankins Executive Director Lee  $71,209
Genevieve Megginson Executive Director Chatham  $70,982
  Executive Director Rutherford-Polk  $70,964
  Finance Director Johnston $70,848
  Director of Quality Support Services Iredell $70,441
Steve Riley System Administrator Cumberland $70,373
Laura Benson Executive Director Durham $70,000
Catherine Etters Fiscal Officer Mecklenburg $70,000
Paul Bamford Human Resources Director State $69,921
Gary Yellin Executive Director Harnett  $69,639
Laura Welborn Executive Director Wilkes $69,344
  Program and Evaluation Director Durham $68,580
Ann Meletzke Family Services Manager Alamance $68,227
Tracy Zimmerman Communications Director State $68,000
Barbara Whitley Executive Director Stanly  $67,967
Sherry Peel Executive Director Carteret $67,498
Michelle Malcom Finance Director Forsyth  $67,300
  Executive Director Lincoln & Gaston $67,292
  Director of Child Care Solutions Iredell $66,120
  Child Care Health Consultant Iredell $66,029
  Program Manager Johnston $65,816
  Executive Director Yadkin  $65,656
Kay Overton Executive Director Tyrell-Washington  $65,457
Sandra Hudspeth Executive Director Caswell  $65,339
Dana Walker Finance/HR Manager Alamance $65,203
Lisa Woolard Executive Director Beaufort-Hyde  $64,797
  Executive Director Montgomery  $64,392
Kimberly Lyke Salyards Executive Director Catawba  $64,300
  Director of Programs Rutherford-Polk  $64,126
  CCR&R Program Coordinator Stokes $63,793
Arnita Davis More at Four Program Manager Cumberland $63,528
Carole Mangum Accounting Manager Cumberland $63,284
Melinda Schlesinger Evaluation Manager Wake $63,028
  Program Manager Davidson $62,964
  Early Childhood Specialist Alamance $62,950
  Program Evaluator/More@ 4 Stokes $62,801
  Executive Director Moore $62,748
  Finance Manager Wilson $62,744
Andrea Tarantino Program Manager/Elv New Hanover $62,497
Rahel Gashaw Senior Accountant Mecklenburg $62,462
  Executive Director McDowell  $61,991
Joy Sotolongo Research and Evaluation Director State $61,958
  Resource & Referral Director Moore  $61,879
Susan Clark Monitoring Manager State $61,543
Jenny Whitley MAF Director Forsyth  $61,200
Debi Bartholomew More at Four Manager Wake $61,072
  School Readiness Director Johnston $61,054
Krista Turner Manager – ECC/PPS/CCHC New Hanover $60,993
  Executive Director Ashe  $60,722
  CCR&R Office Administrator Brunswick $60,691
  Executive Director Wilson $60,426
Ann Ward Local Partnership Support Specialist State $59,708
Tom Mitchell/Christine Bauer Financial Consultant State $59,645
Cynthia Turner Health Specialist State $59,477
Joan Williams Executive Director Duplin  $59,340
Don Stewart Program Compliance Manager Davidson $59,173
Debbie Harrell Finance Director New Hanover $59,123
  More at Four Coordinator Buncombe $59,033
Brian Massie System Administrator State $59,000
  Finance Manager Harnett $58,971
  Executive Director Davie  $58,949
Debbi Kennerson-Webb Childcare Services Manager Alamance $58,882
Cinda Amen Early Childhood Development Director Forsyth  $58,800
Candy Tilley Vice-President Albermarle  $58,538
Barbara Rein Program Evaluator Mecklenburg $58,191
  Fiscal Affairs Administrator Beaufort-Hyde  $58,137
Pat Hansen Evaluation Specialist State $58,016
  Finance Director Guilford $58,000
Louise Bannon Director of Communications Wake $58,000
  Program Coordinator Wilson $57,826
Harry Stephens/Jackie McClain Financial Monitor State $57,799
  Executive Director Scotland  $57,299
Eunice Murray Staff Accountant Mecklenburg $57,200
Wilbur Smith Executive Director Columbus  $57,124
  Program & Evaluation Director Dare  $57,073
Leslie English Financial Analyst State $57,008
Gwen Edwards Training Coordinator Buncombe $56,780
Denise Johnson Early Childhood Manager Cumberland $56,424
Gale Wilson Subsidy and Local Partnership Support Specialist State $56,380
Lillian Bryant Executive Director Bladen  $56,282
Emmy Marshall Family Support Specialist State $56,255
  Executive Director Person  $56,253
Ted Whiteside Fund Development Specialist Durham $55,791
Flavia McKeithan Support Services Administrator New Hanover $55,123
  More at Four Director Cleveland  $55,053
  More at Four Director Moore  $55,053
Randall Hardgrove Assistant Manager – ECC/PPS New Hanover $55,031
Lee Henderson Senior Program Manager Mecklenburg $55,000

Note: figures revised for Moore County

This article was posted in Budget & Taxes by Francis De Luca on March 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM.

© 2011 The Civitas Institute. Visit us on the web at
This article can be found at

Comments on this article

  • 1

    Terry Reynolds
    Terry Reynolds Mar 17, 2011 at 16:23

    I’d sure like to know how you got that number for Moore. That’s 28% higher than the report I shared with your representative, a Mr. Henson.
    Get real!

  • 2

    CB Jacobs
    CB Jacobs Mar 17, 2011 at 16:27

    This report is very misleading because the total compensation amoiunts listed above include payroll taxes and health benefit costs. The list gives the impression that these are the take home salaries for staff and that is simply not correct. The report also compares these salaries to average 2008 -2009 private sector compensation for North Carolina workers; this is a wholly inacurate comparison because it ignores factors such as the education background and experience of the various workers included in the average. The report is misleading on this point also because it does not reveal the range of private sector compensation included in the average of $55,000. The public should be wary of such misleading and incomplete reporting.

  • 3

    Genevieve Megginson
    Genevieve Megginson Mar 17, 2011 at 16:47

    I don’t know where this number came from because it is not my salary. This is very misleading and a dis-service to the public.

  • 4

    Mike Mar 17, 2011 at 17:44

    Since when does Civitas care about “needy children”? Seems like a hit-job done to justify GOP’s crusade to defund the program.

  • 5

    Charles Mar 17, 2011 at 18:44

    I think it’s important to understand Smart Start’s dog in the fight. They are certainly well compensated.

  • 6

    Erica W.
    Erica W. Mar 18, 2011 at 7:23

    What this article does not say is far more important than what it says and speaks very favorably to how well Smart Start manages money. Smart Start employs about 1000 people statewide and the average salary is approximately $36,000. So, on average, Smart Start employees earn $19,000 less than the AVERAGE private sector employee in North Carolina according to the statistics in this article.

  • 7

    Gretta B.
    Gretta B. Mar 18, 2011 at 8:54

    Please tell us this, are you in any way, shape or form, concerned about the most precious things? The answer would be NO. You have spent useless time gathering inaccurate information and have spent no time concentrating on what is important. You should be ashamed of yourselves…each of you!!! The citizens of NC will not fall for this foolishness. The only pressing issue is the welfare of our children. You all can not possibly be parents….and God help you if you ever have to depend on the very ones that you are hurting. Shame on you Civitas!!!!!

  • 8

    Francis De Luca
    Francis De Luca Mar 18, 2011 at 9:15

    Glad to see people are reading this. Couple of comments:
    *Yes I do have children and I was a responsible parent and provided for them. As I have not criticized your parenting skills please refrain from criticizing mine – of course demonizing a person rather than debate the issue is a favorite tactic of the liberal left.
    *On saying that the “average salary” is $36,000 is not what the article is discussing, we tried to determine total compensation not salary.

  • 9

    Andrew Henson
    Andrew Henson Mar 18, 2011 at 9:31

    Ms. Megginson, your data comes from the FY09-10 990 file. Salary: 62,086 + Benefits: 8896 comes out to 70,982.

  • 10

    Erin Mar 18, 2011 at 9:38

    It’s disappointing that Civitas uses inaccurate and confusing numbers.

  • 11

    Suzanne Hanlin
    Suzanne Hanlin Mar 18, 2011 at 11:24

    There figures are misleading, it does not take into account for education and number of years working with the organization. The executive director in Wilkes County has been there for 15 years.
    While I understand the budget debate is important and necessary, it just seems like early childhood is taking the biggest hit. Why can not budget cuts be evenly distributed?
    But if your point was you don’t like Smart Start and you want it eliminated, believe me, we got.

  • 12

    Andrew Henson
    Andrew Henson Mar 18, 2011 at 13:10

    Our point all along has been to make a smarter investment in early childcare. Rooting out areas where there is excess so that we can reform those areas and increase access to children who need those sorts of programs.

  • 13

    Lisa Mar 18, 2011 at 18:59

    I’m so glad that I am smart enough to do my own research and advocate for my child. Smart Start is heavily monitored and scrutinized in state audits which can be found online. Audits that are conducted by independent firms. It’s all about the ripple effect. If programs like Smart Start are eliminated, a huge portion of child care subsidy goes with it (about one-third in most areas). In my county, Smart Start gave about $800,000 to Department of Social Services for Child Care Subsidy. Without subsidy, hundreds of children would be without quality child care. If I can’t afford child care, that means I can’t work and thus need other forms of government assistance. Unemployment rates increase. Economy continues to suffer. Civitas is obviously politically motivated in this smear campaign of misinformation. I encourage everyone to do their OWN thorough research.

  • 14

    Andrew Henson
    Andrew Henson Mar 18, 2011 at 19:18

    Civitas has been advocating all along for INCREASING childcare subsidies. Smart Start subsidies could be consolidated into DSS and it would INCREASE the amount of children that we could provide affordable childcare to simply because DSS spends less on administration that Smart Start does. Please do your homework on those figures, I wrote an article on that. Here is the link:

  • 15

    Lisa Mar 20, 2011 at 9:27

    thanks for the link but I read that already. Ok I’m always willing to play devil’s advocate. Let’s just say you were a good boy last year and Santa gave you a clue for Christmas. Elimination still doesn’t help other issues. For instance, it’s been proven that quality early childhood programs have long term economic benefits. Here’s the link: I think we can both agree that the economy needs as much of that as possible.I also found out that Smart Start administers grants to child care providers that help them while pursuing an early childhood degree. There are also grants that help child cares buy learning materials that they could not afford otherwise. In my book, anything that improves the quality of my child’s education is of great importance to me. I do wonder why the Moore county numbers were revised, especially by so much? Makes me curious about how much of this and all the other Civitas reports have been ‘revised’. Considering this over zealous misconstrued smear campaign I have witnessed with Civitas, I’m disgusted. Everything seems very biased and imbalanced. I don’t feel this group is thinking of the children in any capacity at all.

  • 16

    Lisa Woolard
    Lisa Woolard Mar 21, 2011 at 14:29

    Not all positions are paid entirely out of Smart Start dollars. I think this distinction needs to be made.

  • 17

    Joy Sotolongo
    Joy Sotolongo Mar 22, 2011 at 21:02

    I have submitted numerous comments to Mr. Henson asking why he doesn’t discuss the quality of early care and education in his articles. I would be interested in understanding Civitas’ position on quality early education, because it appears that Civitas in interested in attacking initiatives that have proven to improve quality and outcomes for children.

  • 18

    Joy Sotolongo
    Joy Sotolongo Mar 22, 2011 at 21:04

    I just noticed that my salary is listed in this article and I haven’t worked for Smart Start for several months. This sheds more doubt on the entire list.

  • 19

    Perry Carroll
    Perry Carroll Mar 23, 2011 at 7:39

    What are the total compensation packages for all Civitas employees? Does Civitas receive any funding other than the hard-earned donations of citizens?

  • 20

    Annette Mar 23, 2011 at 7:39

    I don’t have small children nor do I work for the State. What I do know it is time to consolidate all agencies that duplicate efforts and Smart Start does along with More at Four. Taxpayers and the State should be looking everywhere to cut costs and these areas are not immune. There is duplication and waste and if consolidating allows more to go to direct services than administration, as an average taxpayer, I say do it.

  • 21

    Jake Mar 23, 2011 at 8:26

    These programs are a waste of tax dollars. They use children as an excuse to create more bureaucracy. Parents themselves should be funding these extra programs through private sector positions not tax dollars. As a parent, I took the responsibility of preparing my children for their pre-school years, provided for them and their needs during school, and additionally prepared them for their adult years. Now, instead, we’re bombarded with programs that coddle to moochers, ‘non-parent’ parents, and excessive unnecessary state employees with excessive salaries and compensation. Amazing to me that they are nearly all WOMEN in these positions, and they’ll still complain about unequal pay and justify their jobs! Those that continue to back these programs are the same ones who back government education with the countless waste and poor education provided, instead of it turning to private sector education. THAT’S WHY OUR EDUCATION STATISTICS CONTINUE TO FALL IN WORLD RANKINGS (even with these BS programs).

  • 22

    John Pizzo
    John Pizzo Mar 23, 2011 at 8:34

    I’d like Civitas to investigate and report on any provable positive
    effect this expenditure has on student performance. Do SS students
    compare favorably with non SS at Grade 2, Grade 6, High School?
    If not, take an axe to it and use the money to fund scholarships to charter schools.

  • 23

    Jake Mar 23, 2011 at 8:42

    To Lisa – You advocate for these expenditures and then add that it provides for child care subsidies and grants for these educators, etc, funded by more tax dollars. That is the problem with this whole system. You expect all taxpayers to fund the needs of you and your children, because you were not responsible enough to NOT have kids until you could properly afford to fund their needs. That means saving money instead of spending every dime and then complaining that you don’t have enough. Nothing but excuse after excuse for your entitlements. We need to get rid of all government programs and give it back to actual charities and donations as they do not squander their money and limit free-bees, forcing them to find employment and care for themselves and their children. I, for one, have no sympathy for whiners like you or you kids who will learn to do as you do!!!!

  • 24

    John Pizzo
    John Pizzo Mar 23, 2011 at 8:43

    @Jake, who wrote: ” Amazing to me that they are nearly all WOMEN in these positions, and they’ll still complain about unequal pay and justify their jobs!”

    >>> I noticed the same thing. How many of these “women” have lost their jobs during this “mancession?” The feminist squeaky-wheel has been greased over and over again and this Civitas list we can see the end result. Nearly 2/3’s of new college graduates are women…..and then there’s the Lilly Ledbetter Law. Ridiculous. The problem with men is that they do not have strident/militant governmental and NGO organizations advocating on their behalf. If we’re going to have class wars in this country, let’s have a gender war, too !! If anyone thinks this is about “the children” they need to lay off the Kool-Aid before they overdose.

  • 25

    Jake Mar 23, 2011 at 8:48

    Joy Sotolongo says: (Mar 22, 2011 at 21:04) “I just noticed that my salary is listed in this article and I haven’t worked for Smart Start for several months. This sheds more doubt on the entire list.” Well, Joy, education has been wasted on you. If you read the article and comprehend that the figures come from 2008/2009 and/or 2009/2010 tax and salary records, you would see that you are now in 2010/2011 – idiot!

  • 26

    Jake Mar 23, 2011 at 8:59

    Hey John – Totally agree. Biggest detriments to this country is the feminist and liberal movements. Ever wonder where all of these entitlement programs come from? This nation has been taken over by women, minorities, and liberals in man jobs. They then change the rules to make it even easier on themselves. Tell me one program that a hard working , WHITE male in this country receives (not that we need one). Instead, we proliferate a useless and needy population which is spending this nation into bankruptcy and use the POOR children as justification. I for one can’t wait til this nation goes bankrupt and all of these whimps starve! All that will be left is the strong, hard-working population and we’ll start from scratch.

  • 27

    suzanne Mar 23, 2011 at 9:29

    It is fine if you don’t agree with someone, but to call someone an idiot is inappropriate. It is fine to argue about policy, but when you start name calling your argument loses merit. Very uncalled for, and I really think you could have stated your point better.

  • 28

    melatr7 Mar 23, 2011 at 9:34

    Wow! A whole lot of ‘deer in the headlights’ comments.

    A person mentioned that, in their county, Smart Start ‘GAVE’ DSS $800.000. If they can do that, they sound over-funded to me…

    Then there is the funding given away in ‘GRANTS for grown ups’ that help them while pursuing an early childhood degree and GRANTS to stock private enterprise (“help child cares buy learning materials”). Slush fund, anyone?

    Taking comments from the above posts, we have “1000 people statewide” serving “hundreds of kids”. Maybe it’s ‘thousands of kids’, but who knows? See this link for the results of a study that had a bunch of waffling and no results when smart people tried to figure out who was being served by Smart Start.
    OK, so it’s OLD. I would venture to guess that the accountability has not improved! (And check out the wikipedia article too- it’s a gas.) You want to point fingers at Civitas for what you perceive to be their disapproval because they are shining light on what this program is/is not doing, but the fact is that there are a lot of others who have tried to seek justification for your existence too- to no avail.

    Smart Start Motto: We do good ‘for the c-h-i-l-d-r-e-n! (But don’t ask us to prove it). I am not doubting that many involved certainly CARE- just that this program may not be the best solution to good end results.

    The above list names 135 EXECUTIVE positions that siphon off over 9 MILLION dollars, and that does not include facilities, staff, or those with ‘boots on the ground’ doing the real WORK!

    None of which points out that with all of this ‘professional’ babysitting, children are no more equipped to start school than ‘back in the day’ when the neighbor’s daughter babysat and/or caring family members chipped in. Same with the pre-K programs at elementary schools. Mom’s day off. Just a big drain on the economy and precious resources.

  • 29

    Doog Nitz
    Doog Nitz Mar 23, 2011 at 9:43

    … re John & Jake’s observation on the plethora of females on the list… This is to be expected given that the Smart Start program was founded in part to provide GJAGW (good jobs at good wages) for the fairer sex. For my part I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the interviewing process which resulted in the manly hires… especially Buncombe’s Mr. Bradford. Just what was it that these manly candidates said or showed that tipped the scales in their favor? Maybe they will post their resumes on this site for a competency inspection…

  • 30

    John Pizzo
    John Pizzo Mar 23, 2011 at 10:37

    Any continuance of Smart Start must be based on solid, undoctored, evidence that the program is effective. I spent my life working in private industry where unproven boondoggles were rapidly scrapped.

    As for Jake’s comments…..we live in a society where government has created specific “protected classes” which is code for sanctioned discrimination because protected classes have, effectively, more rights than individuals NOT in the protected classes. If you look at the list of protected classes, it includes blacks, Latinos, women, the disabled, and the GBLT’s.
    That leaves only one “group” UNprotected – non-disabled straight white males. Don’t know about the rest of you but, I for one, want to live in a country that respects everyone’s right EQUALLY. We should hold that truth ‘self-evident’ that all men (meaning: people) are created equal. “Protected classes” is a clever invention of the Progressive Left and is a self-serving act of
    ‘soft’ vote-buying.

  • 31

    Max Mar 23, 2011 at 13:10

    These bureaucrats, like those teachers in Wisconsin, are trying to protect their their goodies. If you really care about “the children” and you want to subsidize child care for lower income people, all you have to do is voucherize it. Use a sliding eligibility scale. Parents with vouchers could take kids where they liked and you would only need about five or ten bureaucrats to “administer” the program. Problem solved. Money saved. Plus: pilot project for the rest of the education system.

  • 32

    Max Mar 23, 2011 at 13:10

    These bureaucrats, like those teachers in Wisconsin, are trying to protect their goodies. If you really care about “the children” and you want to subsidize child care for lower income people, all you have to do is voucherize it. Use a sliding eligibility scale. Parents with vouchers could take kids where they liked and you would only need about five or ten bureaucrats to “administer” the program. Problem solved. Money saved. Plus: pilot project for the rest of the education system.

  • 33

    Michael Dowling
    Michael Dowling Mar 23, 2011 at 14:59

    Your reporting is inaccurate, misleading and tries to suck people into the wrong conclusions about a worth while program that benefits the people of North Carolina.

  • 34

    kate thegen
    kate thegen Mar 24, 2011 at 10:12

    a pitiful provocation that is just designed to pit us against each other. these professionals get professional salaries for important work. please pick on the business world if you want to stir outrage over undeserved salaries. this is a clever class-warfare distraction from your attack on services for North Carolina children.

  • 35

    Child Care Worker
    Child Care Worker Mar 24, 2011 at 13:42

    As a “real” child care worker that is on the front line providing high quality childcare to children and families I am appalled at these figures. Since 2007 child care subsidies have remained the same and now I see the major reason is because of those inflated salaries paid to individulas that do not have any direct contact/impact with children or families. In Durham County the current market rate for a 3-5 year old child being served in a five star child care center is $766.00 per month(these rates have not changed since 2007)if the average worker of smart start was not paid “36,000” to shuffle papers to ensure the clean audits that they are too often proud to point out, approximatley four children could have attended a five star quality child care center. How can smart start continue to confuse the public with their self rightous position on continued funding?

  • 36

    SS Independent Proof
    SS Independent Proof Mar 31, 2011 at 1:09

    To melatr7… In the interest of providing a fair and balanced set of links, check this one out: Unlike your link from a study released in 1998 that was unclear on the impact of Smart Start, this independent study released MARCH 2011 by Duke is pretty clear: Smart Start works!

  • 37

    Info is VERY Misleading
    Info is VERY Misleading Mar 31, 2011 at 15:26

    There are multiple positions listed above that are not funded with any Smart Start dollars. That’s right, several positions on this list are 100% funded with OTHER, NON-Smart Start dollars. Furthermore, a number of positions are paid from a combination of sources, including significant portions from OTHER THAN Smart Start funds. Civitas is well aware of this but conveniently left out these details so as to inflate the implied administrative Smart Start cost.

  • 38

    Francis De Luca
    Francis De Luca Mar 31, 2011 at 15:37

    For SS independent Proof 9 – who is the same person as VERY MISLEADING, the Duke study is of the impact of BOTH Smart Start and More at Four so it is more a study of the impact of spending a lot of money in a specific geographic area. It is not a validation of Smart Start. More at Four has had some independent studies that shows it may be having a positive effect. We have seen no independent studies that Smart Start has the same impact. In fact the last study of any kind on Smart Start was in 2003 the best we can determine. 8 years later one miraculously appears that lumps two programs together and declares success.

  • 39

    R.W. Apr 08, 2011 at 23:04

    I notice that this article and the other Civitas article mentioned in the comments both use misleading information to attack Smart Start. Both articles claim that the intent is to improve the spending on early child education/development by reducing administrative costs, but I have to ask where is your proof that the things you’re suggesting would work? You seem to be more interested in printing short, misleading articles than offering any real thoughtout solutions. I really doubt that you’re going to fix all the states problems with a hand full of short articles like this.

    When are you going to print a real article that suggests real solutions that is not peppered with the misleading use of facts? What is your solution for making Smart Start better for the kids? If Smart Start needs to be scraped, how would its function be replaced or integrated into other agencies and how would those agencies be expanded to be able to accomplish those rolls? Does North Carolina and the U.S. need good early childhood programs? Will a good early childhood system prevent the U.S. from falling behind in the global economy?

    To answer your inevitable question about what I mean by “misleading”:

    One example in this article is, you compare directors and managers against average, private sector compensation. I would certainly hope that people with a 4-year college degree or higher in managerial positions could beat an average that includes people who may not even have a college degree.

    Another example would be that this article says that data was collected from 65 local partnerships, but there were only 57 mentioned in the salary data. Where’s the data from the other 8?

Leave a Reply

Sorry, due to spammers you must have Javascript enabled to make comments.

Raleigh Web Design, WordPress & Web Development