north carolina early childhood action plannc early childhood action plan: cumberland county data...

COUNTY DATA REPORTCUMBERLAND

NORTH CAROLINAEARLY CHILDHOODACTION PLAN

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….…….............…….. 3

County Demographics…………………………………………………………………………….............……. 4

Goal 1: Healthy Babies……………………………………………………………………………............……. 7

Goal 2: Preventive Health Services…………………………………………………………........….…........ 10

Goal 3: Food Security……………………………………………………………………………............……. 13

Goal 4: Safe and Secure Housing…………………………………….…………………........….…............ 15

Goal 5: Safe and Nurturing Relationships……………………………….……….…………........….…....... 18

Goal 6: Permanent Families for Children in Foster Care…………………………….……….…….……… 21

Goal 7: Social-Emotional Health and Resilience…………………………….……….…….……….……… 26

Goal 8: High-Quality Early Learning…………………………….……….….....….….......…………............ 27

Goal 9: On Track for School Success…………………………….……….….….….......…………............. 29

Goal 10: Reading at Grade Level…………………………….……….….….….......………….................... 32

Additional County Data Resources…………………………….……….….….….......…………................. 38

Acknowledgements…………………………….……….….….….......………….............……......……........ 39

Visit www.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood to view the full North Carolina Early Childhood Action Plan............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction: NC Early Childhood Action Plan County Data ReportsThe NC Early Childhood Action Plan County Reports provide local data for the 10 goals and more than 50 measures that arethe foundation of the state’s Early Childhood Action Plan to achieve a bold vision: all North Carolina children will get ahealthy start and develop to their full potential in safe and nurturing families, schools, and communities. North Carolinagovernment, public, and private organizations have committed to making progress by 2025 with accountability to definedbenchmarks for each goal. The plan was created with input from more than 1,500 people representing a diversity ofperspectives, including parents, families, healthcare providers, child care providers, educators, school administrators, childadvocacy groups and researchers. For more information about the goals of the statewide NC Early Childhood Action Plan,visit www.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood.

About the County Data Reports • Reports are accessible for all 100 counties, and include county data when it is available for all measures in the NC Early Childhood Action Plan. • Not every goal has an existing data source. For example: there is ongoing collaboration across NC to better assess the social and emotional wellness of young children. • Data for some measures may be suppressed at the county level when a population is too small to show reliable information that preserves the privacy of families.

Making MeaningFor data to be actionable, it requires context, engaging diverse perspectives to understand root causes, and intentional focusto acknowledge and then set aside assumptions. In addition, while the quantitative data shared in these reports is anessential tool, it is insufficient on its own. Lived experience is important data, particularly when it comes to understandingracial inequities in outcomes.Starting questions to consider include: • What do you notice when you look at the data? • Do you notice any patterns in the data? • Which groups of children and families are falling behind the most? • How does the data align with your direct experience with children and families? • Whose perspective is needed to understand the data?

Taking ActionStakeholder Engagement. Engage community stakeholders representing diverse perspectives in a data conversation.Stakeholders should be diverse in age, gender, income-level, and race and ethnicity. Think about who impacts the issue(e.g., policymakers, local government agencies, community-based organizations, early childhood programs), who isimpacted by the issue, and who is trusted by those impacted (e.g., faith community, advocacy organizations). Data can be atool to create community buy-in for aligned action.Strategic Planning. The information shared in the Early Childhood Action Plan County Reports can be used to supportongoing efforts on the local or statewide level that require detailed pictures of county-level outcomes for young children, suchas using this information to inform goal-setting for future changes in outcomes.Development Opportunities. Many foundations and other organizations devoted to philanthropic giving want to understandlocal data when making decisions about where to invest resources. Use the County Reports in your development activitiesand collaborate with potential funders in better understanding the needs of your community.

We hope the information provided in these reports is helpful. Please visit www.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood to view the NCDepartment of Health and Human Services’ commitments to young children. There you can view the full North Carolina EarlyChildhood Action Plan, featuring our top ten goals as a state, and all Early Childhood County Reports.

For more information and resources on collaborative data analysis, see:

• School Reform Initiative: www.schoolreforminitiative.org/download/data-driven-dialogue/ • Idea Data Center – Data Meeting Toolkit: https://ideadata.org/data-meeting-toolkit • Idea Data Center – Engaging Stakeholders with State Data: https://ideadata.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2019-06/Engaging_Stakeholders_With_State_Data_0.pdf • Collective Impact Forum: www.collectiveimpactforum.org/sites/default/files/Community%20Engagement%20Toolkit.pdf • Racial Equity Toolkit: An Opportunity to Operationalize Equity: www.racialequityalliance.org/resources/racial-equity-toolkit-opportunity-operationalize-equity/


........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT INTRODUCTION

Young Children in Cumberland County

In 2018, there were 1.1 million young children aged 8 or under in North Carolina. Overall, the state saw rapid growth in the populationof young children throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. However, the total number of children in this age group decreased slightlysince 2009. This population is also heavily concentrated geographically, with more than half living in only 13 counties across the state.

See below for information on demographics of young children aged 8 and under in Cumberland County.

Yancey1,487

Wilson8,977

Watauga3,384

Washington1,181

Vance5,063

Tyrrell391

Transylvania2,547

Swain1,654

Stanly6,248

Scotland4,019

Rowan14,773

Richmond4,931

Perquimans1,176

Pamlico847

Orange12,780

Onslow28,059

Northampton1,641

New Hanover20,924

Montgomery2,822

Mitchell1,318

Mecklenburg129,125

McDowell4,318

Martin2,212

Madison1,869

Jones841

Jackson3,631

Iredell18,393

Hertford2,134

Henderson10,483

Haywood5,336

Halifax5,098

Greene1,998

Granville5,475

Gaston24,078

Edgecombe5,798

Durham35,397Davie

4,064Davidson16,866

Currituck2,754

Columbus5,496

Cleveland10,084

Clay889

Chowan1,299

Catawba16,631

Carteret5,525

Camden1,065

Cabarrus24,999

Burke7,858Buncombe

23,609

Brunswick9,955

Bertie1,597

Beaufort4,415

Avery1,241

Anson2,292

Alleghany886

Alamance17,420

Yadkin3,692

Wilkes6,451

Wayne14,529

Warren1,678

Wake124,176

Union26,438

Surry7,147

Stokes3,906

Sampson7,340

Rutherford6,348

Rockingham8,645

Robeson16,330

Randolph15,073

Polk1,430

Pitt18,875

Person3,889

Pender6,411

Pasquotank4,374

Nash9,791

Moore10,197Macon

3,131

Lincoln8,028

Lenoir5,969

Lee7,060

Johnston23,749

Hyde414

Hoke8,204

Harnett17,906

Guilford56,841

Graham782

Gates991

Franklin6,763

Forsyth42,056

Duplin6,896

Dare3,144

Cumberland43,573

Craven11,618Cherokee

2,256

Chatham6,655

Caswell1,930

Caldwell7,589

Bladen3,203

Ashe2,224

Alexander3,397

© 2019 Mapbox © OpenStreetMap

Number of Children Aged 0 – 8 by County in North Carolina, 2017

Data Source: CDC WONDER Bridged-Population Estimates

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Population

44,39544,207

46,334

44,124

44,114

42,582

44,82143,899 43,89244,937

42,741

46,032

45,132

45,833

43,63042,951

45,814

43,573

45,210

43,46443,458

45,651

43,134 45,41043,34443,33345,515

Population of Children Aged 0 – 8 in Cumberland County


For more information on the North Carolina Early Childhood Action Plan data sources, please view the NC Early Childhood Action Plan Data Appendix at https://files.nc.gov/ncdhhs/ECAP-DataAppendix-WEB.pdf

Population of Children Aged 0 – 8<2,0002,000 to 4,9995,000 to 9,99910,000 to 19,99920,000 to 29,99930,000 to 59,999100,000+

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS

Young Children in Cumberland County


Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of Total Population

46.1%46.5%46.8%

46.8%

54.4%

45.7%

11.5%

47.2%

47.2%

11.7%11.8%

47.5%

38.9%

11.1%

53.6%

44.8%

12.3%

10.5%

48.2%

10.3%

52.7%

13.1%

48.7%

9.9%

35.5%

43.7% 40.4%

9.6%

16.6%

16.6%16.5%

49.3%

6.9%

6.9%

16.3%

51.8%

14.0%

7.1%9.1%

38.4%

7.1%

36.4%38.3%38.2%38.5%

15.8%

38.6%

41.3%

7.4%

38.0%

15.7%

37.9%

8.7%

37.9%38.8%

50.1%

37.8%

38.9% 39.8%37.7%

42.4%

37.7%

2.2%

37.7%37.7%

2.3%

7.8%

37.1%39.1%

2.0% 2.8%2.5%8.2%

39.2%

2.5%

39.4%

2.5%1.9% 2.7%1.8%

Population of Children Aged 0 – 8 Years in Cumberland County by Race, Ethnicity1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of Total Population

24.0%

24.5%

10.6%9.6%

60.2%

11.5%

60.8% 59.5%

8.6%

61.4%

12.4%

58.7%61.9%

7.5%

13.3%

68.2%

62.5%

57.8%

1.8%

67.7%

52.8%

2.2%

53.1%

6.4%

14.2%

63.3%

67.2%

57.0%

25.9%

2.8%

53.5%

17.6%25.4%

17.5%

66.6%

15.0%

64.1%

54.0%56.2%

17.2%

26.5%

28.5%

5.3%

25.0%28.4%28.4%

2.2%

16.9%

2.4%

64.6%

66.0%

28.2%

15.6%

54.5%

26.9%

3.8%

28.1%

3.8%

24.6%

16.7%

24.6%

2.7%

24.5%

24.5%

3.5%

27.9%

55.5%

24.4%27.8%

2.9%

65.1%65.6%

24.3% 24.3%

16.0%23.9% 24.2%

23.9%

3.0% 3.3%

55.0%

27.6%

1.3%

24.1%

1.3%

Population of Children Aged 0 – 8 Years in North Carolina by Race, Ethnicity


Race, EthnicityAfrican AmericanAmerican Indian or Alaska NativeAsian or Pacific IslanderHispanic or LatinoWhite

Race, EthnicityAfrican AmericanAmerican Indian or Alaska NativeAsian or Pacific IslanderHispanic or LatinoWhite

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICSNC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT

Economic Characteristics of Families with Children in North Carolina

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, 2013 – 2017


Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates


Vance38.0%

Tyrrell35.0%

Pasquotank30.7%

Northampton40.1%

Hyde30.8%

Hertford36.7%

Columbus34.7%

Beaufort31.1%

Alleghany34.7%

Yancey25.5%

Rutherford24.4%

Pamlico30.5%

Montgomery27.3%

Mitchell25.6%

McDowell25.9%

Cleveland26.6%

Chowan29.2%

Avery27.5%

Transylvania24.3%

Swain24.0%

Rowan22.4%

Polk21.3%

New Hanover21.0%

Madison24.3%

Jackson22.5%

Gaston21.7%

Durham24.3%

Davidson21.5%

Caldwell22.1%

Brunswick21.5%

Watauga16.8%

Stanly19.6%

Orange11.2%

Mecklenburg16.8%

Iredell16.4%

Henderson17.5%

Davie17.1%

Currituck15.0%

Catawba18.7%

Camden10.7%

Cabarrus13.6% Wayne

31.1%

Washington40.7%

Warren33.0%

Scotland39.3%

Sampson31.1%

Robeson44.4%

Richmond37.1%

Martin30.7%

Lenoir37.7%

Jones32.6%

Halifax40.2%

Greene43.7%

Edgecombe38.5%

Bertie39.2%

Anson33.0%

Wilson28.7%

Wilkes24.7%

Pitt29.6%

Perquimans28.0%

Macon26.5%

Graham28.0%

Forsyth25.1%

Duplin30.5%

Cumberland25.1%

Craven26.4%

Clay27.4%

Cherokee28.8%

Caswell28.8%

Bladen28.4%

Ashe25.1%

Yadkin22.0%

Surry23.1%

Rockingham23.9%

Randolph23.4%

Person21.9%

Nash23.9%

Lee22.9%

Johnston21.4%

Hoke23.2%

Haywood22.5%

Harnett22.9%

Gates22.6%

Franklin23.9%

Carteret20.9%

Burke22.1%

Wake11.6%

Union11.6%

Stokes20.6%

Pender17.5%

Onslow18.3%

Moore14.8%

Lincoln15.1%

Guilford19.7%

Granville17.0%

Dare16.3%Chatham

16.0%Buncombe17.6%

Alexander16.1%

Alamance20.6%


Percent of Children Under 18 Living in Poverty by County, 2017

Watauga$61,250 Orange

$92,763

New Hanover$66,147

Mecklenburg$73,182

Henderson$58,777

Granville$59,805

Gates$78,266

Durham$61,088Davie

$69,650

Currituck$76,546

Carteret$59,474

Camden$73,182

Cabarrus$77,139Stanly

$53,033

Person$50,814

Mitchell$53,088

Madison$50,274

Macon$50,327

Jackson$53,893

Gaston$53,934

Franklin$50,425

Davidson$56,897

Caldwell$54,289

Brunswick$50,697

Avery$52,756 Alamance

$50,616Yancey$49,896

Wilson$42,063

Swain$48,586 Rutherford

$43,256

Rowan$49,454

Pasquotank$49,560

Onslow$49,223

Cleveland$45,342

Clay$44,516

Burke$46,203

Beaufort$49,167

Vance$31,808

Tyrrell$35,060

Transylvania$37,500

Northampton$29,417

Montgomery$40,960

McDowell$39,996

Martin$36,278

Jones$36,574

Hertford$34,780

Greene$34,984

Columbus$41,157

Chowan$31,298

Alleghany$37,805

Wake$94,752

Union$86,162

Pender$69,828

Moore$71,879

Lincoln$64,545

Johnston$64,335

Iredell$71,996

Hyde$73,802

Chatham$66,798

Caswell$58,183

Buncombe$60,338

Alexander$58,656

Stokes$55,962

Polk$52,353

Pitt$55,736

Nash$52,275

Lee$52,734

Haywood$53,004

Harnett$55,364

Guilford$54,757

Forsyth$53,281

Dare$56,171

Craven$52,891

Catawba$55,940

Yadkin$47,467

Wilkes$47,428

Wayne$43,924

Surry$47,426

Sampson$42,211

Rockingham$47,312

Randolph$47,811

Perquimans$42,455

Pamlico$48,750

Hoke$48,029

Cumberland$46,602

Cherokee$47,847

Bladen$44,951

Ashe$46,649

Washington$30,116

Warren$40,474

Scotland$31,593

Robeson$33,755

Richmond$33,283

Lenoir$38,240

Halifax$33,655

Graham$40,798

Edgecombe$30,797

Duplin$36,065

Bertie$39,561

Anson$38,463


Median Annual Income of Families with Children Under 18 by County, 2013-2017

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICSNC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT

Annual Median Income of Families with Children Under 18 Years of Age$29,417 - $41,157$41,158 - $49,896$49,897 - $56,897$56,898 - $94,752

Percent of Children Under 18 Living in Poverty10.7% - 20.6%20.7% - 24.3%24.4% - 30.5%30.6% - 44.4%

Babies across North Carolina from all backgrounds will have a healthy start in their first year of life.

Babies across North Carolina from all backgrounds deserve to have a healthy start. Unfortunately, too many babies in our stateface great challenges, as early as birth, from outcomes such as preterm birth, low birth weight, and birth defects. North Carolinahad the 11th highest single-year infant mortality rate in the country in 2017, at a rate of 7.1 per 1,000 live births, compared to thenational rate of 5.8 per 1,000. In North Carolina, troubling disparities in infant mortality exist among populations. Most notably,African American infant deaths persistently occur at more than double the rate of white infant deaths.

The data in this section outline key indicators for Healthy Babies at the county level. Visit www.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood formore information on this goal in the NC Early Childhood Action Plan.

2.1x____________________________________

Rate of African Americaninfant deaths comparedto white infant deaths inCumberland County,2013 – 2017

10.1%____________________________________

Percent of babies born ata low birth weight (<2,500 g)in Cumberland County,2014 – 2018

9.7 per 1,000____________________________________

Total infant deaths per1,000 live births inCumberland County,2013 – 2017

2.4x____________________________________

Rate of African Americaninfant deaths comparedto white infant deaths inNorth Carolina,2013 – 2017

7.1 per 1,000____________________________________

Total infant deaths per1,000 live births inNorth Carolina,2013 – 2017

9.2%____________________________________

Percent of babies born ata low birth weight (<2,500 g)in North Carolina,2014 – 2018

Data Source: State Center for Health Statistics (SCHS), Division of Public Health (DPH), NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS)

Technical notes: The infant mortality disparity ratio was calculated by dividing the infant mortality rate for Black, Non-Hispanic infants for a specified time period by the infant mortality rate for White, Non-Hispanic infants forthe same time period. Infant mortality rates are calculated as the number of infant (under 1 year of age) deaths in a specified time period divided by the number of live births for the same time period. Rates are shown in infantdeaths per 1,000 live births.


Technical notes: A * indicates a value or measurement was based on small numbers (a count of less than 10 for infant mortality disparity and infant mortality rate data and a count of less than 20 for low birth weight data).Values based on small numbers are considered unreliable and should be interpreted with caution. An infant mortality disparity rate of * with no value indicates that there were zero deaths for a particular race or ethnicitysubgroup resulting in an infant mortality disparity rate of zero for the measurement period.


Yancey* Tyrrell

*

Transylvania*

Swain*

Polk*

Perquimans*

Mcdowell*

Madison*

Jackson*

Haywood*

Camden*

Avery*

Alleghany*

Alexander*

Watauga8.6*

Stanly4.1

Pasquotank4.1*

Pamlico4.1*

Northampton3.8*

New Hanover3.6

Greene6.9*

Currituck31.3*

Carteret4.1*

Buncombe3.8

Wilkes2.6*

Wake3.6

Vance3.5*

Onslow2.7

Mecklenburg2.6

Martin3.6*

Gaston2.7

Durham3.1

Cleveland2.7

Catawba2.8

Wilson2.5

Orange1.9*

Montgomery2.4*

Halifax2.0*

Columbus2.1

Chowan2.4*

Alamance2.3

Rowan1.7

Hertford1.5*

Cabarrus1.8

Brunswick1.1*

Beaufort1.9

Stokes*

Mitchell*

Jones*

Graham*

Dare*

Cherokee*

Ashe*

Yadkin3.9*

Union3.6

Person5.1*

Pender5.4

Macon6.6*

Lincoln12.1*

Clay32.9*

Caswell14.1*

Bertie4.5*

Warren3.3*

Sampson2.7*

Rutherford2.8*

Rockingham2.7

Lee2.9

Hyde3.5*

Hoke2.6*

Gates2.7*

Franklin3.0

Davidson3.1

Bladen2.8*

Wayne2.3

Richmond2.2*

Pitt2.3

Nash2.3

Iredell2.5

Henderson2.0*

Harnett2.0

Guilford2.5

Forsyth2.2

Cumberland2.2

Craven2.4

Chatham2.2*

Anson2.1*

Washington1.7*

Surry1.1*

Scotland1.1*

Robeson1.2

Randolph1.2*

Moore1.4* Lenoir

1.3*

Johnston1.9

Granville1.7

Edgecombe1.8*

Duplin1.2*

Davie1.4*

Caldwell1.1*

Burke0.7*


Infant Mortality Rate Disparity Ratios by County, Five-Year Estimates, 2013 – 2017

Goal 1: Healthy Babies

NORTH CAROLINA


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 1: HEALTHY BABIES

Infant Mortality Disparity Rate Ratio0.70 - 1.901.91 - 2.602.61 - 3.603.61 - 32.0Indicates that there were zero deaths for the Black, Non-Hispanic orWhite, Non-Hispanic race and ethnicity subgroup, resulting in an infantmortality disparity rate of zero for the measurement period.

Technical notes: A * indicates a value or measurement was based on smallnumbers (a count of less than 10). Values based on small numbers areconsidered unreliable and should be interpreted with caution.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20170.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Infant Mortality Rate/1,000 Live Births

13.7

8.8

13.313.2

12.3

8.69.7

6.4

8.4

14.6

6.86.3

6.3

8.1

9.3

6.16.6

14.4

Trends in Infant Mortality Rates in Cumberland County,Five-Year Estimates

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20170.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Infant Mortality Rate/1,000 Live Births

13.014.0

12.912.9

7.27.27.5

13.6

7.3

5.45.45.45.6 5.5

5.3

12.7

7.17.1

Trends in Infant Mortality Rates in North Carolina, Five-YearEstimates

Wilson9.1

Tyrrell9.3*

Pamlico14.1*

Northampton9.8*

Hertford18.2Halifax

9.7

Gates9.7*

Columbus10.9

Cleveland9.4

Clay9.1*

Beaufort12.5

Watauga8.2

Vance8.6

Swain8.5*

Stanly7.5

Rowan8.2

Montgomery8.7

Madison8.1*

Lee7.5

Greene7.7*

Avery8.9* Alamance

8.1

Polk6.7*

Onslow6.5

Mecklenburg6.1

Mcdowell7.4

Martin7.3*

Jackson7.3

Durham6.4

Catawba7.1

Carteret6.7

Burke7.4

Yancey1.2*

Transylvania4.4*

Pasquotank5.2

Orange3.9

New Hanover4.6

Mitchell2.8*

Jones2.1*

Currituck5.4*

Chowan5.7*

Brunswick5.5

Alleghany2.0*

Camden*

Washington12.6*

Robeson11.6

Richmond9.3

Pitt10.9

Person9.5

Hyde9.2*

Edgecombe11.7

Cumberland9.7

Cherokee11.6

Chatham10.7

Bladen11.0

Bertie14.8

Anson11.2

Wilkes8.0

Warren8.7*

Scotland8.9

Rockingham8.2

Randolph8.6

Pender8.9

Nash8.3

Macon8.2

Iredell8.7

Harnett8.1

Guilford8.4

Granville8.1

Forsyth8.2

Duplin8.3

Caldwell8.2

Yadkin7.3

Rutherford7.4

Lenoir7.4

Johnston6.7

Hoke6.1

Haywood7.2

Gaston7.1

Franklin7.2

Davidson6.2

Craven6.5

Caswell6.8*

Buncombe6.4

Ashe7.2*

Alexander7.3

Wayne5.4

Wake5.3

Union5.1

Surry6.0

Stokes5.6

Sampson5.7

Perquimans1.6*

Moore6.0

Lincoln5.0

Henderson5.4

Graham2.4*

Davie5.2

Dare2.9*

Cabarrus5.6


Infant Mortality Rates in North Carolina by County, Five-Year Estimates, 2013 – 2017


Technical notes: Infant mortality rates are calculated as the number of infant (under 1 year of age) deaths divided by the total number of live births during the same time period. Rates are shown in infant deaths per 1,000 livebirths. A * indicates a value was was based on small numbers (a count of less than 10). Rates based on small numbers are considered unreliable and should be interpreted with caution.


Technical notes: A * indicates a value or measurement was based on small numbers (a count of less than 10). Values based on small numbers are considered unreliable and should be interpreted with caution. An infantmortality disparity rate of * with no value indicates that there were zero deaths for a particular race or ethnicity subgroup resulting in an infant mortality disparity rate of zero for the measurement period.

Race, EthnicityAllBlack, Non-HispanicWhite, Non-Hispanic

Race, EthnicityAllBlack, Non-HispanicWhite, Non-Hispanic


NORTH CAROLINA


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

Infant Mortality Rate per 1,000 Live Births01.2 - 6.06.1 - 7.47.5 - 8.99.0 - 18.2


Technical note: A * indicates a value or measurement wasbased on small numbers (a count of less than 10). Valuesbased on small numbers are considered unreliable andshould be interpreted with caution.


Wilson11.3%

Vance12.3%

Northampton11.8%

Montgomery11.0%

McDowell10.6%

Martin12.3%

Hertford10.7%

Gates11.6%

Columbus11.8%

Cleveland10.8%

Beaufort10.7%

Avery11.3%

Yancey9.3%

Yadkin9.3%

Stanly10.2%

Rowan10.0%

Pasquotank9.4%

Pamlico10.1%

Mecklenburg9.5%

Jackson9.5%

Davidson9.6%

Chowan9.7%

Brunswick9.4%

Alamance9.5%

Transylvania9.1%

Rutherford8.9%

Madison9.2%

Macon8.6%

Iredell8.7%

Durham8.8%Davie

8.6%

Cabarrus8.8%

Burke9.0%

Tyrrell5.9%*

Swain8.3%

Orange7.5%

Onslow6.8%

New Hanover8.2%

Mitchell8.4%

Jones7.6%

Henderson7.9%

Currituck8.5%

Catawba8.5%

Carteret7.0%

Camden5.8%

Alleghany7.7%

Washington11.9%

Warren11.4%

Scotland14.0%

Robeson12.2%

Richmond12.0%

Lenoir10.7%

Halifax12.0%

Greene10.8%

Edgecombe12.8%

Caswell11.2%

Bladen10.9%

Bertie13.3%

Anson12.7%

Wilkes9.7%

Rockingham9.4%

Pitt10.3%

Person10.0%

Nash9.6%

Lee10.0%

Hoke9.4%

Haywood9.4%

Guilford9.8%

Granville9.7%

Gaston9.6%

Forsyth10.5%

Cumberland10.1%

Cherokee9.5%

Chatham9.3%

Caldwell10.3%

Wayne8.8%

Surry8.7%

Sampson9.0%

Randolph8.6%

Pender8.6%

Moore8.9%

Lincoln8.6% Harnett

8.7%Graham8.6%

Franklin9.1%

Duplin8.7%

Ashe8.6%

Watauga8.4%

Wake7.9%

Union7.7%

Stokes8.3%

Polk7.0%

Perquimans7.0%

Johnston8.4%

Hyde5.2%*

Dare6.3%

Craven8.3%

Clay8.5%

Buncombe8.5%

Alexander8.4%


Percent of Babies Born at a Low Birth Weight (<2,500g) by County, Five-Year Estimates, 2014 – 2018

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20180.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Percent of Babies Born <2,500 grams

9.9%9.9% 10.2%9.2%

9.7%9.7%

9.6%

9.0%9.0%9.0%9.0%9.0% 9.1%

10.1%

Percent of Babies Born at a Low Birth Weight (<2,500g), Five-Year Estimates



NORTH CAROLINA


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

Percent of Babies Born at a Low Birth Weight5.20% - 8.50%8.51% - 9.30%9.31% - 10.50%10.51% - 14.0%


VS.

Technical note: A * indicates a value or measurementwas based on small numbers (a count of less than 20).Values based on small numbers are consideredunreliable and should be interpreted with caution.

Cumberland North Carolina

Babies, toddlers, young children and their families will have regular, ongoing access to high-quality health services.

Timely health check-ups are essential to supporting the optimal health and well-being of babies, toddlers and young childrenacross North Carolina. During well-child visits, healthcare professionals provide preventive care such as immunizations, leadscreenings, and developmental and social emotional screenings to identify possible health issues as early as possible. Parentsalso have a chance to talk about their concerns, get information, guidance and advice about their child’s health anddevelopment, and get connected to the right services for their child. NC Medicaid has seen an upward trend in well-child visitsfor children aged 0 –15 months, as well as 3 – 6 years, from 2012 – 2017.

The data in this section outline key indicators for Preventive Health Services at the county level. Visitwww.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood for more information on this goal in the NC Early Childhood Action Plan.

62.5%________________________Percent of ChildrenAged 0 – 15 MonthsEnrolled in Medicaidand Health ChoiceWho Received RegularWell-Child Visitsin North Carolina,2017

69.9%________________________Percent of ChildrenAged 3 – 6 YearsEnrolled in Medicaidand Health ChoiceWho Received RegularWell-Child Visitsin North Carolina,2017

4.3%_____________________Percent of ChildrenAged 0 – 8 YearsWithout HealthInsurance inNorth Carolina, 2016

19.8%_____________________Percent of Heads ofHouseholds WithChildren Aged 0 – 8Years WithoutHealth Insurance inNorth Carolina, 2016

Ages 0 – 15 Months Ages 3 – 6 Years

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Year

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Year

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

55.7%

62.5%61.6% 61.7%

54.6%54.4% 59.4%

54.0%

58.9%64.0%

59.3%63.6%

69.9%68.2%64.1% 68.8% 69.3%

72.0%71.9% 73.0%72.2%

65.6%68.9%

71.5%71.3%

Percent of Children Enrolled in Medicaid and Health Choice Who Received Regular Well-Child Visits

54.9%________________________Percent of ChildrenAged 1 and 2Receiving Screeningfor ElevatedBlood Lead Levelsin North Carolina,2017

38.5%________________________Percent of ChildrenAged 1 and 2Receiving Screeningfor ElevatedBlood Lead Levelsin Cumberland County,2017

62.3%________________________Percent of ChildrenAged 0 – 15 MonthsEnrolled in Medicaidand Health ChoiceWho Received RegularWell-Child Visits inCumberland County,2017

68.9%________________________Percent of ChildrenAged 3 – 6 YearsEnrolled in Medicaidand Health ChoiceWho Received RegularWell-Child Visits inCumberland County,2017

Goal 2: Preventive Health Services

Visit www.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood to view the full North Carolina Early Childhood Action Plan............................................................................................................................................................................................ 10

Data Sources: Well-Child Visits Data: NC Medicaid, Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) Measures; Health Insurance Data: American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Census Bureau; Lead Data: NCLEADSurveillance System, NC Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance System, Children’s Environmental Health, Division of Public Health (DPH), NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS)

Technical notes: Well-child visits data for the 0-15 month age group assess children who turned 15 months old during the measurement year and had at least 6 well-child visits with a primary care physician during their first15 months of life. Well-child visits data for the for the 3-6 year age group assess children 3-6 years of age who received one or more well-child visits with a primary care practitioner during the measurement year. Only twoyears of well-child visits data are available at the county-level at this time. However, DHHS is working to make additional county-level data available.


Cumberland North Carolina United States

NORTH CAROLINA


COUNTY DATA NOTYET AVAILABLE


........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

GOAL 2: PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICESNC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT

Data Source: NC Medicaid, Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) Measures

Technical notes: For the 0-15 month age group, data assess children who turned 15 months old during the measurement year and attended at least 6 well-child visits with a primary care physician during their first 15 monthsof life. For the 3-6 year age group, data assess children 3-6 years of age who attended one or more well-child visits with a primary care practitioner during the measurement year.

Watauga70.3%

Tyrrell72.4%

Transylvania76.1%

Richmond74.0%

Pasquotank72.5%

Montgomery74.0%

Madison74.2%

Jones69.6%

Henderson70.1%

Haywood74.3%

Granville69.4%

Currituck77.3%

Catawba70.0%

Camden78.6%

Burke85.5%

Buncombe70.8% Beaufort

74.9%

Alamance70.5%Yancey

66.3%

Vance63.9%

Stanly68.5%

Orange69.3%

Onslow65.4%

McDowell67.1%

Davie65.7%

Brunswick64.0%

Wilson61.8%

Perquimans61.8%

Pamlico60.9%

Northampton61.0%

New Hanover63.8%

Mitchell59.8%

Iredell62.3%

Durham63.6%

Davidson58.6%

Cleveland59.8%

Chowan63.5%

Cabarrus63.8%

Avery57.1%

Washington49.5%

Swain43.3%

Scotland49.2%

Rutherford48.8%

Rowan55.7%

Mecklenburg56.0%

Martin38.1%

Jackson56.8%

Hertford29.9%

Greene38.3%

Edgecombe55.8%

Columbus52.0%

Bertie33.3%

Alleghany47.6%

Wayne70.4%

Person69.6%

Nash73.2%

Moore73.2%Macon

76.3%

Dare76.6%

Carteret76.7%

Wilkes67.5%

Warren67.1%

Wake67.1%

Surry65.4%

Sampson66.6%

Rockingham65.8%

Lincoln65.8%

Lee67.6%

Johnston68.0%

Hoke68.2%

Harnett65.1%

Guilford65.4%

Franklin67.2%

Craven64.0%

Caldwell64.5%

Ashe67.2%

Alexander64.3%

Yadkin61.8%

Union60.6%

Stokes60.8%

Randolph58.5%

Pender63.5%

Hyde63.2%

Halifax63.6%

Graham61.9%

Gates60.0%

Cumberland62.3%

Clay63.2%

Caswell58.7%

Robeson54.8%

Polk56.5%

Pitt53.9%

Lenoir49.5%

Gaston54.0%

Forsyth55.7%

Duplin55.7%

Cherokee47.2%

Chatham55.9%

Bladen54.8%

Anson51.3%


Percent of Children Aged 0 – 15 Months Enrolled in Medicaid and Health Choice Who ReceivedRegular Well–Child Visits, 2017

Watauga73.2%

Stanly76.3%

Perquimans75.0%Orange

76.3%

Montgomery77.3%

Macon74.3% Jones

74.2%

Halifax72.9%

Currituck73.4%

Carteret82.1%

Alleghany77.1%

Alamance73.2%

Tyrrell71.9%

Transylvania72.1%

Richmond72.0%

Pasquotank71.5%

Pamlico71.4%

Northampton70.5%

New Hanover72.8%

Mitchell71.8%

Martin71.5%

Hertford70.9%

Henderson71.7%

Columbus71.2%

Catawba72.6%

Washington68.3%

Vance68.1%

Onslow67.7%

Mecklenburg68.3%

McDowell68.7%

Madison70.2%

Iredell68.9%

Durham68.8%

Cabarrus69.4%

Avery68.1%

Anson67.9%

Yancey67.4%

Swain46.9% Rutherford

58.6%Jackson57.3%

Granville65.3%

Gates67.2%

Cleveland65.2%

Chowan66.0%

Camden67.2%

Brunswick66.2%

Yadkin74.5%

Wilkes75.1%

Surry76.5%

Johnston74.1%

Hyde78.0%

Haywood73.0% Greene

76.5%

Davie75.9%

Dare77.8%Chatham

73.0%

Burke76.5%

Beaufort74.0%

Ashe76.9%

Alexander73.6%

Wayne70.2%

Wake71.3%

Sampson72.5%

Rowan70.7%

Pender72.6%

Nash70.5%

Lincoln70.2%

Lee71.6%

Forsyth71.6%

Edgecombe72.8%

Craven72.1%

Buncombe72.1%

Union68.9%

Stokes70.1%

Robeson70.0%

Randolph67.6%

Pitt68.2%

Person70.2%

Lenoir67.7%

Hoke67.9%

Harnett68.9%

Franklin70.2%

Duplin68.4%

Davidson70.0%

Cumberland68.9%

Caswell68.1%

Wilson67.5%

Warren64.9%

Scotland67.0%

Rockingham67.2%

Polk60.6%

Moore66.4%

Guilford67.4%

Graham65.6% Gaston

66.0%

Clay59.4%

Cherokee62.1%

Caldwell67.4%

Bladen64.6%

Bertie64.6%


Percent of Children Aged 3 – 6 Years Enrolled in Medicaid and Health Choice Who ReceivedRegular Well–Child Visits, 2017


Visit www.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood to view the full North Carolina Early Childhood Action Plan............................................................................................................................................................................................. 11

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Percent Receiving Recommended Number of Well-Child Visits29.90% - 56.80%56.81% - 63.80%63.81% - 69.30%69.31% - 85.50%

Percent Receiving Recommended Number of Well-Child Visits46.90% - 67.60%67.61% - 70.20%70.21% - 72.90%72.91% - 82.10%


Data Source: NCLEAD Surveillance System, NC Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance System, Children’s Environmental Health, Division of Public Health (DPH), NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS)

Technical note: The above percentages are calculated by dividing the number of children ages 1 and 2 in North Carolina by the unduplicated count of children with blood lead samples collected during the calendar year inNorth Carolina. Starting in 2013, children are counted as being "tested" for lead poisoning until they are confirmed to have a lead level ≥5 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL). After a child has a "confirmed" lead level, the child isno longer counted as "tested" during subsequent years. Blood lead tests after lead level confirmation are considered "follow-up" test results and are not counted in the surveillance tables. The numbers reported for NorthCarolina Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance Data may vary somewhat from previous reports due to ongoing improvements in data quality and receipt of previously unreported test results from laboratories.

Wilson80.3%

Transylvania77.5%

Stanly82.7%

Pasquotank78.4%

Pamlico87.4%

Northampton77.2%

Montgomery89.9%Jackson

77.0%

Hertford77.3%

Greene72.4%

Davidson72.7%

Cleveland73.5%

Beaufort74.5%

Watauga69.5%

Perquimans70.5%

New Hanover70.7%

Madison63.5%

Jones68.2%

Columbus69.7%

Cherokee64.9%

Carteret70.3%

Camden63.3%Vance

56.4%

Tyrrell56.7%

Swain59.8%

Rowan55.5%

Richmond62.3%

Mcdowell60.7%

Henderson60.7%

Granville60.4%

Clay58.2%

Chowan54.5%

Catawba56.1%

Brunswick58.4%

Alamance61.8%

Rutherford37.7%

Polk36.1%

Orange47.2%

Onslow43.3%

Mitchell47.3%

Mecklenburg32.7%

Iredell52.5%

Gates48.2%

Durham48.5%

Currituck36.2%

Cabarrus47.6%

Avery49.0%

Anson42.3%

Sampson78.1%

Nash81.7%

Moore77.1%

Haywood71.5%

Halifax86.1%

Guilford75.0%

Graham91.9%

Edgecombe73.8%

Caldwell71.5%

Bladen77.2%

Bertie71.3%

Wilkes68.2%

Wayne68.8%

Washington64.9%

Warren66.4%

Robeson65.1%

Randolph65.6%

Pender66.9%

Macon64.5%

Lenoir65.2%

Lee70.5%

Hyde63.6%

Forsyth64.2%

Davie63.2%

Craven67.8%

Caswell63.7%

Burke70.8%

Ashe63.8%

Yadkin62.2%

Surry61.6%

Stokes60.1%

Scotland60.8%

Person56.7%

Martin60.8%

Johnston57.1%

Harnett54.2%

Franklin61.2%

Duplin60.9%

Buncombe62.9%

Alexander59.5%

Yancey42.0% Wake

45.6%

Union41.0%

Rockingham51.8%

Pitt53.8%Lincoln

46.7%

Hoke48.8%

Gaston44.9%

Dare43.5%

Cumberland38.5%

Chatham52.8%

Alleghany40.7%


Percent of Children Aged 1 and 2 Receiving Lead Screening by County, 2017

2013 2014 2015 2016 20170.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

51.7%51.8%52.4%

47.4%

37.0%36.5%

54.9%

37.8%

35.5%

38.5%

Percent of Children Aged 1 and 2 Receiving Lead Screening


Visit www.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood to view the full North Carolina Early Childhood Action Plan.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 12

CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

NORTH CAROLINA


Percent of Children Aged 1 and 2 Screened for Elevated Lead Levels32.7% - 53.8%53.9% - 62.9%63.0% - 70.8%70.9% - 91.9%



VS.

Babies, toddlers, young children and their families across North Carolina will have access toenough healthy food every day.

Today, too many North Carolina children don't know if there will be enough food for them every day, or do not get enoughquality, nutritious food. More than one in five children across the state, totaling almost 500,000, lived in food-insecure homes in2016. According to this data, in some North Carolina counties, nearly one in three children face food insecurity. This putsyoung children at risk for negative health, developmental, behavioral and academic outcomes. While the rate of food insecurityhas gone down slightly in recent years, multiple reports indicate that North Carolina’s families face food insecurity at higherrates than much of the country. A recent United States Department of Agriculture report on overall food insecurity in the U.S.ranks North Carolina as the ninth highest rate of hunger of any state in the nation.

The data in this section outline key indicators for Preventive Health Services at the county level. Visitwww.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood for more information on this goal in the NC Early Childhood Action Plan.

20.9%____________________________________

Percent of ChildrenAged 0 – 17Who are Food Insecurein North Carolina, 2016

22.1%____________________________________

Percent of ChildrenAged 0 – 17Who are Food Insecurein Cumberland County, 2016

30.7%____________________________________

Percent of Children Aged2 – 4 Who ReceiveWIC, and Are Classified asEither Overweight or Obesein North Carolina, 2017

23.6%____________________________________

Percent of Children Aged2 – 4 Who ReceiveWIC and Are Classified asEither Overweight or Obesein Cumberland County, 2017

Wilson26.8%

Washington27.4%

Warren25.1%

Vance25.8%

Tyrrell27.9%

Swain27.6%

Richmond27.0%

Northampton30.2%

Jones27.2%

Jackson24.6%

Hertford25.0%Halifax

26.8%

Columbus24.6%

Chowan25.8%

Alleghany24.3%

Yancey23.4%

Transylvania23.4%

Rutherford24.2%

Rowan22.6%

Perquimans23.7%

Pamlico23.0%

Montgomery22.7%

Mitchell23.5%

McDowell23.5%

Martin23.5%

Macon24.2%

Haywood23.1% Greene

22.9%

Cleveland23.6%

Clay22.6%

Cherokee24.1%

Burke23.5%

Anson23.3%

Watauga21.5%

Stanly21.8%

Polk22.2%

Pasquotank22.5%

Gaston21.9%

Davidson21.2%

Alamance21.4%

Orange16.1%

Onslow20.4%

New Hanover20.3%

Mecklenburg18.2%

Iredell19.4%

Henderson19.0%

Granville19.8%

Durham19.6%Davie

20.5%

Currituck18.7%

Catawba20.9%

Camden20.1%

Cabarrus17.8%

Beaufort20.7%

Avery20.9%

Scotland30.6%

Robeson28.7%

Lenoir24.6%

Hyde25.3%

Graham24.6%

Edgecombe27.9%

Duplin24.8%

Bladen27.5%

Bertie25.2%

Wilkes23.0%

Wayne24.1%

Sampson23.3%

Rockingham23.1%

Hoke23.1%

Caswell24.1%

Ashe23.2%

Yadkin22.2%

Surry21.2%

Stokes21.3%

Randolph21.6%

Pitt21.9%

Person22.3%

Pender21.4%

Nash21.9%

Moore21.0%

Madison21.8%

Lee21.2% Harnett

21.1%

Guilford21.0%

Forsyth21.7%

Cumberland22.1%

Craven21.6%

Caldwell21.5%

Alexander22.3% Wake

16.5%

Union16.5%

Lincoln20.4%

Johnston19.4%

Gates20.5%

Franklin20.0%

Dare18.9%Chatham

18.7%

Carteret20.7%

Buncombe19.6%


Child Food Insecurity Rates for Children Ages 0 – 17 Years by County, 2016

Data Sources: Child Food Insecurity Data: Feeding America; WIC Participation Program Data: NC Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program, Nutrition Services Branch, Division of Public Health (DPH), NC Department ofHealth and Human Services (NCDHHS); Data on Children Who Receive WIC and Are Classified as Overweight or Obese: Crossroads WIC MIS, NC Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program, Nutrition Services Branch,Division of Public Health (DPH), NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS)

61.4%____________________________________

Percent of Eligible FamiliesReceiving State and FederalSupplemental Food/NutritionAssistance Benefits fromWomen, Infants, andChildren (WIC) Programin North Carolina, 2017

Goal 3: Food Security



NORTH CAROLINA


Child Food Insecurity Rate16.1% - 20.9%21.0% - 22.5%22.6% - 24.2%24.3 - 30.6%


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

GOAL 3: FOOD SECURITYNC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT

Technical note: "COUNTY DATA NOT YET AVAILABLE" indicates that data have not yet been accessed or fully analyzed at the county level. NC DHHS will continue to work towards accessing as much data as possible atthe county level to support local work.

Data Source: NC Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program, Nutrition Services Branch, Division of Public Health (DPH), NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS)

Technical notes: Children served in NC WIC Clinics are at or below the 185% FPL. Therefore, these children may not be representative of general children population in NC. Data were not collected in 2013. In 2014, data wereonly collected at the local health department agency level, so county-level data are not shown for that year.

2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2016 20170.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

30.7%30.7%

22.3% 23.6%21.2%

29.7%31.9%

31.8%

22.9%

29.2%

20.9%20.9%

29.4%

Percent of Children in North Carolina Aged 2 – 4 Who Receive WIC, and Who AreClassified as Either Overweight or Obese

Yancey35.8%

Watauga37.8%

Northampton34.3%

Montgomery36.3%

Halifax37.6%

Clay40.3%

Chowan38.2%

Catawba54.0%

Brunswick36.0%

Anson34.8%

Pasquotank33.7%

Iredell32.9%

Haywood31.6%

Davie32.1%

Davidson31.5%

Columbus32.2%

Cabarrus32.8%

Alamance32.6%

Wilson30.3%

Washington29.3%

Transylvania29.2%

Stanly28.3%

Richmond30.0%

Perquimans29.9%

Jones30.4%

Jackson29.3%

Hertford28.7%

Henderson29.2%

Currituck30.9%

Cherokee28.5%

Beaufort29.3%

Avery28.3%

Alleghany28.6% Vance

26.3%

Tyrrell22.9%

Swain25.0%

Rowan27.4%

Pamlico26.5%

Orange26.0%

Onslow24.1%

Mitchell26.7%

Mecklenburg27.3%

Mcdowell25.5%

Gaston26.9%

Durham28.0%

Cleveland28.1%

Camden22.6%

Wilkes38.5%

Warren38.3%

Union36.5%

Surry39.5%

Nash34.7% Martin

36.2%

Lincoln35.6%

Graham40.1%

Franklin56.2%

Duplin36.0%

Dare35.3%Chatham

35.1%

Caldwell35.4%

Bladen36.4%

Ashe36.4%

Yadkin33.3%

Stokes32.1%

Sampson31.7%

Rutherford32.6%

Robeson34.0%

Randolph32.9%

Pitt31.2%

Pender32.5%

Madison33.5%

Lee32.7%

Johnston32.2% Greene

32.1%

Gates32.3%

Forsyth31.5%

Carteret32.1%

Burke33.4%

Alexander34.2%

Wayne29.8%

Wake30.4%

Scotland29.8%

Rockingham30.7%

Polk28.3%

Person30.4%

New Hanover29.8%

Moore31.0%

Hyde29.8%

Guilford30.5%

Craven29.5%Macon

11.8%

Lenoir26.4%

Hoke26.2%

Harnett27.3%

Granville26.8%

Edgecombe27.3%

Cumberland23.6%

Caswell27.0%

Buncombe28.0%

Bertie26.8%


Percent of Children Aged 2 – 4 Who Receive WIC and Who Are Classified as Either Overweight or Obeseby County, 2017



NORTH CAROLINA


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

Percent Overweight or Obese11.8% - 28.1%28.3% - 31.0%31.1% - 34.2%34.3 - 56.2%

NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 3: FOOD SECURITY

VS.


Babies, toddlers, young children and their families across North Carolina will have access tosafe, secure and affordable housing. Too many children across North Carolina don't have a safe and stable place to sleep at night. Some families may be living inshelters, in their cars, or temporarily living with friends or relatives. Unstable housing is stressful, especially for families withyoung children, putting children at higher risk for poor physical and mental health, and other long-term consequences.According to an Administration for Children and Families report, in 2015, one in 28 North Carolina children under age 6experienced homelessness.

The data in this section outline key indicators for Safe and Secure Housing at the county level. Visitwww.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood for more information on this goal in the NC Early Childhood Action Plan.

26,198________________________Number of ChildrenUnder Age 6ExperiencingHomelessnessin North Carolina, 2015

9,970_________________________Number of ChildrenK – Third Grade inPublic SchoolsExperiencingHomelessnessin North Carolina, 2018

32.7%_________________________Percent of ChildrenAged 0 – 8 inFamilies withHigh HousingCost Burdenin North Carolina, 2016

2015 2016 2017 20180

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,00010,305

9,891 9,774 9,970

Number of Children K – Third Grade Enrolled in NCPublic Schools Experiencing Homelessness


Number of Children Under Age 6 ExperiencingHomelessness in North Carolina

Data Sources: Data on Children Under Age 6 Experiencing Homelessness: Administration for Children and Families; Data on Children K - 3rd Grade Experiencing Homelessness: NC Department of Public Instruction; HighHousing Cost Burden Data: American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Census Bureau; Emergency Deparment Visits for Asthma Data: NC DETECT (North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and Epidemiologic Collection Tool):ED Visit Data. Analysis by NC DPH Injury and Violence Prevention Branch; Elevated Blood Lead Levels Data: NCLEAD Surveillance System, Children’s Environmental Health, Division of Public Health (DPH), NC Department ofHealth and Human Services (NCDHHS)

8.5 per 1,000__________________________Number of EmergencyDepartment Visitsfor Asthma Careper 1,000 ChildrenAged 0 – 8in North Carolina,2017

0.38%________________________Percent of ChildrenAged 1 and 2Receiving LeadScreening withConfirmed ElevatedBlood Lead Levelsin North Carolina,2017

15.7 per 1,000__________________________Number of EmergencyDepartment Visitsfor Asthma Careper 1,000 ChildrenAged 0 – 8in Cumberland County,2017

0.26%________________________Percent of ChildrenAged 1 and 2Receiving LeadScreening withConfirmed ElevatedBlood Lead Levelsin Cumberland County,2017

Goal 4: Safe and Secure Housing



NORTH CAROLINA




26,198

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM


NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 4: SAFE AND SECURE HOUSING

Technical notes: "COUNTY DATA NOT YET AVAILABLE" indicates that data have not yet been accessed or fully analyzed at the county level. NC DHHS will continue to work towards accessing as much data as possible at thecounty level to support local work. A * indicates a value was suppressed because the measurement was based on small numbers (a count of less than 10). Data suppression is applied to protect confidentiality and ensure datareliability.

Data Source: NC DETECT (North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and Epidemiologic Collection Tool): ED Visit Data. Analysis by NC DPH Injury and Violence Prevention Branch.

Technical note: Case definitions for asthma diagnoses include ICD9 CM Asthma first listed diagnosis 493 and IDC10 CM Asthma first listed diagnosis J45. Counties with white shading have undergone small cell suppressionrules. Rates are calculated as the number of emergency department visits for children ages 0 - 8 in a year divided by the total population of children ages 0 - 8 in the same year. Rates are shown as number of visits per 1,000children ages 0 - 8. Values are suppressed if a measurement is based on small numbers (a count of less than 10). Data suppression is applied to protect confidentiality and ensure data reliability. Blank spaces appear in theabove bar chart if data have been suppressed.

*Disclaimer: “The North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and Epidemiologic Collection Tool (NC DETECT) is an advanced, statewide public health surveillance system. NC DETECT is funded with federal funds by NorthCarolina Division of Public Health (NC DPH), Public Health Emergency Preparedness Grant (PHEP), and managed through a collaboration between NC DPH and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Department ofEmergency Medicine's Carolina Center for Health Informatics (UNC CCHI). The NC DETECT Data Oversight Committee does not take responsibility for the scientific validity or accuracy of methodology, results, statisticalanalyses, or conclusions presented. The NC DETECT Data Oversight Committee (DOC) includes representatives from the NC DPH, UNC NC DETECT Team and NC Hospital Association.” The NC DETECT Data OversightCommittee (DOC) includes representatives from the NCDPH, UNC NC DETECT Team and NC Hospital Association.

Tyrrell*

Swain*

Polk*

Pamlico*

Madison*

Currituck*

Clay*

Carteret*

Vance20.1 Pasquotank

30.9

Northampton19.5

Montgomery17.0

Martin14.9

Halifax16.3 Chowan

13.9Avery19.3 Alamance

14.1

Wilson10.6

Transylvania11.0

Rutherford11.2

Perquimans12.8

New Hanover13.0

Mitchell10.6

McDowell12.0

Cleveland11.9

Camden9.4

Stanly8.5

Rowan6.2

Orange7.7

Mecklenburg7.2

Hertford5.6

Catawba8.1 Beaufort

5.9

Watauga5.0

Onslow5.4

Greene5.5

Columbus4.9

Cabarrus4.6

Brunswick3.9

Jones*

Hyde*

Graham*

Gates*

Dare*

Cherokee*

Alleghany*

Alexander*

Yancey15.5

Warren18.5

Rockingham19.3

Richmond18.0

Pender18.2

Lee23.4

Hoke15.4

Guilford18.2

Edgecombe14.0

Cumberland15.7

Bladen17.2

Bertie14.4

Wayne9.4

Washington10.2

Scotland13.7

Sampson11.3

Robeson13.2

Person12.3

Nash10.6

Macon8.9

Lenoir12.7

Iredell9.0

Anson9.2

Wilkes8.5

Wake6.5

Pitt8.4

Moore7.6

Lincoln6.4

Johnston7.2

Granville7.9

Gaston6.6

Franklin6.4

Forsyth5.6 Durham

6.2

Duplin8.3

Caswell6.7

Caldwell5.7

Ashe5.8

Yadkin3.3

Union5.1

Surry4.5

Stokes2.6

Randolph4.6

Jackson3.6

Henderson3.7

Haywood4.1

Harnett4.4

Davie2.7Davidson3.4

Craven4.8

Chatham5.4

Burke3.8

Buncombe4.6


Rates of Emergency Department Visits for Asthma Care per 1,000 Children Aged 0 – 8 by County, 2017

2016 2017

Cumberland North Carolina Cumberland North Carolina0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Rate per 1,000 Children Aged 0 – 8

15.6 per 1,000 children




Rates of Emergency Department Visits for Asthma Care per 1,000 Children Aged 0 – 8



.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Rates of Emergency Department Visits for AsthmaCare per 1,000 Children Aged 0 – 8

2.6 - 5.55.6 - 8.58.6 - 13.713.8 - 30.9


A * indicates a value was suppressed because themeasurement was based on small numbers (acount of less than 10). Data suppression isapplied to protect confidentiality and ensure datareliability.

2013 2014 2015 2016 20170.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.29%

0.46%

0.26%

0.52%

0.38%

0.47% 0.47%

0.24%

0.50%

Percent of Young Children Aged 1 – 2 Who Received Lead Screening and HadConfirmed Elevated Blood Lead Levels

Yancey0.71%

Wilson0.84%

Watauga0.60%

Vance0.99%

Stanly0.62%

Perquimans0.61%

Pasquotank1.31%

Pamlico0.63%

Northampton0.69%

Montgomery0.73%Jackson

0.66%

Hyde1.79%

Halifax0.72%

Greene0.67%

Beaufort1.17%

Anson1.43%

Alleghany2.47%

Rowan0.50%

Richmond0.45%

New Hanover0.37%

Henderson0.38%

Duplin0.45%

Currituck0.53%

Catawba0.36%

Cabarrus0.38%

Alamance0.49%

Transylvania0.24%

Mecklenburg0.28%

Mcdowell0.35%

Iredell0.30%

Hertford0.28%

Haywood0.23%

Gaston0.35%

Columbus0.24%

Cleveland0.32%

Cherokee0.32%

Carteret0.25%

Burke0.24%

Washington0.00%

Tyrrell0.00%


0.20%Polk0.00%

Orange0.18%

Onslow0.17%

Mitchell0.00%

Madison0.00%

Jones0.00%

Gates0.00%

Durham0.22%

Clay0.00%

Chowan0.00%

Camden0.00%

Brunswick0.17%

Avery0.00%

Warren1.24%

Rockingham1.05%

Martin0.65%

Lenoir0.72%

Harnett0.60%

Bertie1.17%

Ashe0.74%

Alexander0.74%

Yadkin0.41%

Wilkes0.52%

Wayne0.58%

Scotland0.55%

Randolph0.43%

Person0.44%

Nash0.41%

Moore0.41%Macon

0.44%

Lee0.37%

Hoke0.43%

Guilford0.44%

Forsyth0.51%

Davie0.39%

Buncombe0.37%

Wake0.28%

Union0.36% Sampson

0.31%

Robeson0.35% Pender

0.24%

Lincoln0.27%

Granville0.29%

Franklin0.23%

Davidson0.35%

Dare0.34%

Cumberland0.26%

Craven0.25%

Chatham0.29%

Caldwell0.26%

Surry0.11%

Stokes0.21%

Pitt0.18%Johnston

0.15%

Graham0.00%

Edgecombe0.22%

Caswell0.00%

Bladen0.00%


Percent of Young Children Aged 1 – 2 Who Received Lead Screening and Had Confirmed Elevated BloodLead Levels by County, 2017

Data Source: NCLEAD Surveillance System, Children’s Environmental Health, Division of Public Health (DPH), NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS)

Technical notes: Starting in 2013, children are counted as being "tested" for lead poisoning until they are confirmed to have a lead level ≥5 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL). After a child has a "confirmed" lead level, the childis no longer counted as "tested" during subsequent years. Blood lead tests after lead level confirmation are considered "follow-up" test results and are not counted in the surveillance tables. Children are counted as having"confirmed" lead levels when they have two consecutive blood lead test results ≥ 5 µg/dL within a six-month period, up until December 31, 2017. The second test result must be a diagnostic test, preferably a venous sample,sent to an outside reference laboratory for analysis. The majority of children are tested by their second birthday, but the larger age range of children ages 0-6 years is also shown.



NORTH CAROLINA


CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Percent of Children with Confirmed Elevated Blood Lead Levels0% - 0.23%0.24% - 0.36%0.37% - 0.58%0.59 - 2.47%



VS.

Babies, toddlers and young children across North Carolina will grow up with safe and nurturingfamily and caregiver relationships. Strong, positive relationships between children and their caregivers is a key ingredient for healthy brain development. Whenyoung children face severe adversity such as abuse, neglect or witnessing violence, the structure and function of their brainand bodies can change. For some children, the level of stress produced by severe adversity causes their bodies to respond bystaying set on high-alert, which can result in long-term health consequences. Caregivers play an active role in shieldingchildren from feeling overwhelming amounts of stress. Child maltreatment is defined as abuse and neglect of a child under theage of 18 by a parent, guardian or caregiver. Factors that can contribute to child maltreatment include the presence of adultsfacing substance use disorders, mental illness (notably maternal depression) and intimate partner violence. Young children areespecially vulnerable for experiencing maltreatment.

The data in this section outline key indicators for Safe and Nurturing Relationships at the county level. Visitwww.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood for more information on this goal in the NC Early Childhood Action Plan.

Data Sources: Maltreatment Rate Data: Division of Social Services Central Registry, and NC FAST; Data on Emergency Department Visits for Injuries: NC DETECT (North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and EpidemiologicCollection Tool): ED Visit Data. Analysis by NC DPH Injury and Violence Prevention Branch

Technical Notes: Child maltreatment is defined as abuse or neglect of a child under the age of 18 by a parent, guardian, custodian, or caregiver. North Carolina law identifies three types of maltreatment: 1) abuse, 2) neglect,and 3) dependency. It is critical to note the limitations of child maltreatment data, including that minority populations are disproportionately reported, investigated, and substantiated for cases of maltreatment. Maltreatmentrates are suppressed if the measurement was based on small numbers (a count of less than 10). Data suppression is applied to protect confidentiality and ensure data reliability. Blank spaces appear in the above bar chart ifdata have been suppressed. For data on emergency department visits for injuries, case definitions for injuries are based on the CDC Injury Matrix, which includes injuries classified as having a manner/intent of unintentional,self-inflicted, assault, or undetermined. For more information, visit www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/ecode_matrix.html.

20.1 per 1,000____________________________Number of ChildrenAged 0 – 3 Who AreVictims of Maltreatmentper 1,000 ChildrenAged 0 – 3 inNorth Carolina, 2017



37.6 per 1,000____________________________Number of ChildrenAged 0 – 3 Who AreVictims of Maltreatmentper 1,000 ChildrenAged 0 – 3 inCumberland County, 2017



Maltreatment rate children aged 0 – 3 years Maltreatment rate children aged 4 – 5 years Maltreatment rate children aged 6 – 8 years

Cumberland North Carolina Cumberland North Carolina Cumberland North Carolina0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Number of Children Affected per 1,000

37.6 per 1,000

20.1

28.8 per 1,000

14.5

26.5 per 1,000

13.4

Maltreatment Rates per 1,000 Children, 2017

73.9 per 1,000________________________________Rates of EmergencyDepartment Visitsfor Injuries per 1,000Children Aged 0 – 8in North Carolina, 2017

76.3 per 1,000________________________________Rates of EmergencyDepartment Visitsfor Injuries per 1,000Children Aged 0 – 8in Cumberland County, 2017


Goal 5: Safe and Nurturing Relationships


NORTH CAROLINA


CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 5: SAFE AND NURTURING RELATIONSHIPS

Technical notes: A * indicates a value was suppressed because the measurement was based on small numbers (a count of less than 10). Data suppression is applied to protect confidentiality and ensure data reliability.

Data Source: Division of Social Services Central Registry and NC FAST

Technical Notes: Child maltreatment is defined as abuse or neglect of a child under the age of 18 by a parent, guardian, custodian, or caregiver. North Carolina law identifies three types of maltreatment: 1) abuse, 2) neglect,and 3) dependency. It is critical to note the limitations of child maltreatment data, including that minority populations are disproportionately reported, investigated, and substantiated for cases of maltreatment. Maltreatmentrates are suppressed if the measurement was based on small numbers (a count of less than 10). Data suppression is applied to protect confidentiality and ensure data reliability.

Warren*

Tyrrell*

Perquimans*

Pasquotank*

Pamlico*

Montgomery*

Madison*

Hyde*

Hertford*

Greene*

Graham*

Clay*

Chowan*

Camden*

Avery*

Transylvania23.3

Swain26.3

Stanly27.2

Rockingham22.8

New Hanover30.9

Mitchell57.3

McDowell36.8

Iredell23.6

Halifax27.0

Cleveland32.1

Beaufort30.3

Vance20.3

Polk19.2

Onslow19.7

Northampton21.8

Martin18.3

Macon20.2

Jackson19.4

Haywood21.0

Caldwell15.7

Buncombe16.9

Watauga12.5

Sampson14.6

Pender14.8

Orange11.1

Mecklenburg10.2

Johnston9.8

Henderson10.0

Granville13.0

Currituck12.2

Columbus11.7

Brunswick14.6

Anson15.5

Alamance11.7

Yadkin7.9

Wilson3.1

Union7.1

Rowan9.3

Richmond6.5

Gaston9.5

Durham4.7

Catawba8.5

Carteret8.2

Cabarrus5.7

Washington*

Jones*

Gates*

Dare*

Caswell*

Bertie*

Alleghany*

Yancey45.7

Scotland33.0

Robeson28.4

Person22.9

Lincoln28.5

Duplin26.4

Davie29.8

Cumberland26.5

Cherokee38.8

Ashe23.9

Alexander23.9

Wilkes19.8

Surry22.3

Stokes21.2

Rutherford22.1

Franklin20.1 Edgecombe

20.7Burke22.2

Bladen15.8

Wayne14.4

Nash11.7

Lenoir13.6

Harnett10.0

Davidson14.3

Wake8.2Randolph

9.5Pitt9.0

Moore8.1

Lee7.7

Hoke3.7

Guilford7.2

Forsyth8.4

Craven6.0

Chatham4.5


Maltreatment Rates per 1,000 Children Aged 6 – 8 by County, 2017

Yadkin*

Wilson*

Warren*

Tyrrell*

Swain*

Perquimans*

Pasquotank*

Pamlico*

Martin*

Madison*

Lee*

Hyde*

Hertford*

Greene*

Currituck*

Clay*

Chowan*

Camden*

Avery*Yancey

37.9

Rockingham30.6

Polk41.2

New Hanover33.1

Mitchell45.0

McDowell34.9

Jackson39.2

Iredell29.1

Cleveland34.9

Beaufort31.6

Watauga20.6

Vance25.8

Transylvania24.6

Rutherford19.5

Onslow18.3

Northampton26.3

Halifax26.1

Burke19.6

Brunswick18.2

Anson19.3

Alexander21.4

Stanly17.1

Montgomery15.7

Johnston14.5

Henderson13.1

Granville11.5

Gaston11.9

Catawba15.0

Carteret13.3

Caldwell15.0

Buncombe13.6

Rowan10.8

Orange11.2

Mecklenburg10.7

Harnett9.3

Durham4.9

Cabarrus7.9

Alamance11.1

Washington*

Jones*

Graham*

Gates*

Caswell*

Bladen*

Bertie*

Alleghany*

Wilkes29.0

Surry28.5

Stokes36.5

Scotland27.2

Lincoln34.0

Haywood34.2

Davie31.3

Cumberland28.8

Cherokee53.1

Ashe27.9

Sampson19.0

Robeson24.0

Lenoir22.9

Edgecombe23.9

Duplin24.8

Dare18.3

Wayne17.5

Person17.6

Pender16.8

Nash17.5

Macon17.8

Franklin12.9

Davidson16.0

Columbus13.5

Wake6.6

Union7.5

Richmond9.8

Randolph10.5

Pitt10.9

Moore9.5

Hoke8.3

Guilford7.3

Forsyth9.3

Craven7.8

Chatham8.7



Warren*

Tyrrell*

Perquimans*

Hyde*

Hertford*

Greene*

Chowan*

Camden*

Yancey55.4

Swain38.2 Rutherford

40.5

New Hanover49.6

Mitchell48.0

McDowell45.3

Davie44.3

Cleveland43.4

Cherokee69.4

Burke37.5

Beaufort38.3

Avery39.3

Alleghany60.6 Vance

29.7

Transylvania35.9

Stanly36.1

Polk25.9

Pamlico35.0

Onslow30.5

Northampton31.5

Jackson33.6

Halifax34.4

Caldwell29.9

Anson25.5

Alexander33.8

Wayne22.9

Watauga17.4

Sampson21.3

Orange17.8

Montgomery17.9

Martin22.1

Madison24.0

Henderson20.8

Granville17.6

Columbus16.6

Catawba20.9Buncombe

23.3

Yadkin15.1

Wilson7.9Rowan

13.2

Pasquotank13.4

Mecklenburg12.8

Harnett10.1

Gaston13.4

Durham8.4

Currituck12.1

Carteret15.4

Cabarrus8.4

Alamance13.2

Jones*

Gates*

Bertie*

Wilkes37.4

Scotland46.2

Robeson42.1

Person43.7

Lincoln45.1

Iredell40.4

Haywood38.4

Graham54.6

Cumberland37.6

Clay56.8

Surry33.0

Stokes30.7

Rockingham33.2

Pender27.1

Macon25.3

Franklin30.5 Edgecombe

36.2

Duplin34.0

Davidson25.8

Ashe33.3

Washington19.7

Richmond18.9

Randolph17.0

Pitt16.9

Lenoir22.6

Johnston16.8

Dare19.4

Caswell24.1

Bladen16.3

Wake10.2

Union7.7

Nash16.3

Moore12.6

Lee9.6

Hoke10.6

Guilford9.0

Forsyth13.7

Craven14.5

Chatham12.0





.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Maltreatment Rate per 1,000 Children Aged 6-83.1 - 9.59.6 - 15.515.6 - 22.822.8 - 57.3



GOAL 5: SAFE AND NURTURING RELATIONSHIPSNC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT

A * indicates a value was suppressed because themeasurement was based on small numbers (a countof less than 10). Data suppression is applied toprotect confidentiality and ensure data reliability.



Data Source: NC DETECT (North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and Epidemiologic Collection Tool): ED Visit Data. Analysis by NC DPH Injury and Violence Prevention Branch.

Technical note: Case definitions for injuries are based on the CDC Injury Matrix, which includes injuries classified as having a manner/intent of unintentional, self-inflicted, assault, or undetermined. For more information, visitwww.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/ecode_matrix.html. In October 2015, there was a change in the coding system used in administrative data sets. Because of this change, data are unavailable for 2015 and data pre-2015 are notcomparable to data collected after this change occurred. Rates are calculated as the number of emergency department visits for injuries for children ages 0 - 8 in a year divided by the total population of children ages 0 - 8 inthe same year. Rates are shown as number of visits per 1,000 children ages 0 - 8.

*Disclaimer: “The North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and Epidemiologic Collection Tool (NC DETECT) is an advanced, statewide public health surveillance system. NC DETECT is funded with federal funds by NorthCarolina Division of Public Health (NC DPH), Public Health Emergency Preparedness Grant (PHEP), and managed through a collaboration between NC DPH and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Department ofEmergency Medicine's Carolina Center for Health Informatics (UNC CCHI). The NC DETECT Data Oversight Committee does not take responsibility for the scientific validity or accuracy of methodology, results, statisticalanalyses, or conclusions presented. The NC DETECT Data Oversight Committee (DOC) includes representatives from the NC DPH, UNC NC DETECT Team and NC Hospital Association.” The NC DETECT Data OversightCommittee (DOC) includes representatives from the NCDPH, UNC NC DETECT Team and NC Hospital Association.

Vance106.3

Transylvania122.1

Stanly119.9

Pasquotank123.9

Montgomery116.2

Mitchell119.1

McDowell108.2

Macon103.2

Halifax105.3

Cleveland130.5

Alleghany153.5

Swain89.5

Rowan87.9

Pamlico88.5

Northampton80.4

Jones83.2

Jackson84.3

Iredell90.2

Davie82.4

Catawba87.3

Burke89.0

Avery91.1 Alamance

79.6

Wilson75.1

Watauga55.9

Washington75.4

Union66.2

Orange58.1

New Hanover66.9

Mecklenburg68.3

Madison63.7

Hertford56.7Granville

69.2

Davidson79.2

Chowan67.0

Camden58.2

Cabarrus60.8

Brunswick68.6

Tyrrell38.4

Onslow35.5

Martin51.5

Henderson52.2

Greene36.5

Gates37.3

Edgecombe39.7

Durham48.3

Currituck18.5

Columbus29.3

Clay27.0

Cherokee30.6

Beaufort35.1

Yancey125.1

Wilkes107.9

Surry117.8

Scotland130.6

Rutherford117.2

Rockingham99.5

Robeson101.0

Richmond146.8

Perquimans108.0

Pender103.1

Lenoir103.9

Lee125.9

Hoke97.4

Caldwell104.4

Anson134.4

Yadkin94.3

Wayne86.8

Stokes88.1

Sampson96.0

Person83.6

Lincoln93.3

Haywood86.0

Guilford87.3

Gaston97.1

Forsyth88.1

Craven84.0

Bladen79.6

Ashe94.9 Warren

61.4

Wake64.7

Polk73.4

Moore74.1

Johnston66.8

Graham60.1

Franklin55.3

Cumberland76.3

Bertie65.1Alexander

55.9

Randolph54.5

Pitt45.1

Nash34.8

Hyde29.0

Harnett45.4

Duplin48.6

Dare34.7Chatham

51.2

Caswell42.0

Carteret50.9

Buncombe51.0


Rates of Emergency Department Visits for Injuries per 1,000 Children Aged 0 – 8 by County, 2017

2016 2017

Cumberland North Carolina Cumberland North Carolina0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Rate per 1,000 Children Aged 0 – 8


75.3 per 1,000 children 76.3 per 1,000 children73.9 per 1,000 children

Rates of Emergency Department Visits for Injuries per 1,000 Children Aged 0 – 8



.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Rates of Emergency Department Visitsfor Injuries per 1,000 Children Aged 0 – 8

18.5 - 54.554.6 - 79.279.3 - 97.197.2 - 153.5

NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 5: SAFE AND NURTURING RELATIONSHIPS

Babies, toddlers and young children in North Carolina’s foster care system will grow up in stable,consistent and nurturing families, whether that is with the child’s birth family or through anadoptive family.

Young children need safe, permanent homes with nurturing and secure relationships with adults for healthy growth anddevelopment. Right now, too many of North Carolina’s children in foster care spend hundreds of days in the foster care systembefore being placed in a permanent home. For children who must be placed in foster care, being removed from their home andplaced in a foster home may be stressful. In general, reunification with the child’s family is preferred. However, before this canoccur, it is important that the underlying reasons which led to the child’s removal are addressed. Sometimes families areunable to make these changes within the 12 month time frame allotted by the state, which is a more defined timeframe than thefederal standard of 15 of the most recent 22 months following entry into the foster care system, as set through the Adoptionand Safe Families Act of 1997.

The data in this section outline key indicators for Permanent Families for Children in Foster Care at the county level. Visitwww.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood for more information on this goal in the NC Early Childhood Action Plan.

Data Source: NCDHHS Client Services Data Warehouse Child Placement and Payment System data tables

Technical notes: A * indicates a measurement was based on small numbers (a count of less than 10). Measurements based on small numbers may be unreliable and should be interpreted with caution. A * indicates eitherthere were no documented cases of adoption or there were no documented cases of reunification, guardianship, or custody during the measurement period.

371 days____________________________________Median Number of Daysto Reunification,Guardianship orCustody for ChildrenAges 0 – 3 Years at Entryin the Foster Systemin North Carolina, 2017



822 days____________________________________Median Number of Daysto Adoption for ChildrenAges 0 – 3 Years at Entryin the Foster Systemin North Carolina, 2017

1,006 days____________________________________Median Number of Daysto Adoption for ChildrenAges 4 – 5 Years at Entryin the Foster Systemin North Carolina, 2017

988 days____________________________________Median Number of Daysto Adoption for ChildrenAges 6 – 8 Years at Entryin the Foster Systemin North Carolina, 2017

Time to Reunification, Guardianship, or Custody

Time to Adoption

557 days____________________________________Median Number of Daysto Reunification,Guardianship orCustody for ChildrenAges 0 – 3 Years at Entryin the Foster Systemin Cumberland County, 2017



1,364 days____________________________________Median Number of Daysto Adoption for ChildrenAges 0 – 3 Years at Entryin the Foster Systemin Cumberland County, 2017

2,058 days*____________________________________Median Number of Daysto Adoption for ChildrenAges 4 – 5 Years at Entryin the Foster Systemin Cumberland County, 2017

2,062 days*____________________________________Median Number of Daysto Adoption for ChildrenAges 6 – 8 Years at Entryin the Foster Systemin Cumberland County, 2017

Goal 6: Permanent Families for Children in Foster Care



NORTH CAROLINA


CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

NORTH CAROLINA


CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 6: PERMANENT FAMILIES FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE


Warren

Tyrrell

Perquimans

Gates

Chowan

Caswell

Bertie

Pamlico505*

Jackson568*

Durham598Davie

704*

Columbus486

Catawba627

Camden500*

Cabarrus536

Brunswick531

Swain404*

Stanly415*

Rowan422

Pasquotank428*

Orange428

Mecklenburg431

Madison482*

Currituck440*

Carteret485*

Burke427

Yancey390*

Yadkin385*

Wilson371*

New Hanover337

Montgomery358*

Martin390*

Henderson336

Edgecombe371

Cleveland394

Clay366*

Polk308*

Onslow260

Nash217*

McDowell258

Jones265*

Iredell278

Granville235*

Gaston220

Caldwell327

Beaufort298

Alamance287

Watauga134*

Washington108*

Vance183*

Transylvania56*

Rutherford156

Northampton61*

Mitchell203*

Johnston88

Hertford78*Halifax

30*

Greene8*

Avery148*

Anson176*

Alleghany120*

Hyde

Wake491

Hoke631*

Guilford493

Franklin608

Cumberland557

Chatham540*

Ashe569*

Alexander521

Pitt418

Person445

Macon405*

Lincoln469

Lee412 Harnett

469Graham442* Craven

401

Buncombe450

Surry364

Sampson371

Rockingham395

Randolph370*

Moore371

Haywood355*

Forsyth344

Dare376*

Bladen354*

Wilkes314

Wayne311

Union222

Robeson293

Lenoir213*

Duplin274

Davidson325

Cherokee331

Stokes210

Scotland210*

Richmond144*

Pender35*


Median Number of Days to Reunification, Guardianship or Custody for Children Aged 0 – 3 by County, 2017

Washington

WarrenVance

Tyrrell

Richmond

Polk

Perquimans

Pasquotank

PamlicoJones

Jackson

Hertford

Gates

Chowan

Camden

Avery

Pitt2,445*

Mecklenburg546

Martin543*

Edgecombe916*

Columbus529*

Catawba803*

Caswell963*

Brunswick635*

Wilson479*Rowan

492

Rockingham465*

Orange479*

Madison413*

Johnston519*

Davidson418*

Buncombe407*

Yancey390*

New Hanover365

McDowell342*

Greene390*

Gaston337*

Durham389*

Cherokee326*

Carteret354*

Caldwell321*

Burke403

Alleghany371*

Watauga218*

Onslow255

Montgomery261*

Granville220*

Currituck241*

Cleveland307

Clay311*

Cabarrus218*

Alamance213*

Transylvania175*

Swain61*

Stanly162*

Northampton61*

Mitchell175*

Halifax68*

Beaufort113*

Nash

Lenoir

Hyde

Franklin

DareChatham

Bladen

Bertie

Wake539Randolph

694*

Pender868*

Haywood693*

Davie557*

Cumberland569

Ashe569*

Alexander592*

Wilkes518*

Wayne497*

Rutherford466*

Lee478* Harnett

488Graham449*

Forsyth431*

Sampson371*

Person347*

Henderson321* Craven

340*

Yadkin217*

Stokes308*

Robeson280

Lincoln233*

Iredell266*

Guilford318*

Union169*

Surry118*

Scotland190*

Moore55*Macon

47*Hoke25* Duplin

154*

Anson63*



Warren

Tyrrell

Scotland

Perquimans

Pamlico

Northampton

Montgomery

Mitchell

Madison

Lenoir

Jones

Jackson

Hertford

Gates

ChowanBertieAvery

Wilson538*

Vance1,029*

Polk571*

Pasquotank932*

Orange967*

Mecklenburg684

Macon1,088*

Henderson1,174*

Haywood547*

Durham539*Davie

704*

Cherokee535*

Catawba543*

Clay425*

Camden500*

Caldwell511*

Cabarrus520*

Yancey390*

Richmond350*

New Hanover351

Greene416*

Granville357*

Currituck356*

Cleveland375

Buncombe383

Brunswick407*

Alleghany371*

Rutherford324

Martin340*Iredell

236

Anson245*

Alamance259*

Watauga168*

Transylvania94*

Swain202*

Stanly224*

Onslow182

McDowell179*

Gaston193*

Carteret232*

Beaufort132* Hyde

Wake556Randolph

1,037*Johnston597*

Graham540*

Ashe569*

Yadkin463*

Wayne428

Rowan511

Rockingham465*

Pitt421*Lincoln

461* Harnett513

Franklin503* Edgecombe

523*

Craven479*

Caswell496*

Alexander420*

Wilkes350

Sampson359

Guilford408*

Forsyth360

Cumberland416

Bladen343*

Union314*

Surry302*

Stokes238

Robeson261

Person292*

Pender342*

Halifax324*

Davidson304

Dare337*Chatham

238*

Burke282*

Washington108*

Nash182*

Moore132*

Lee216*

Hoke25* Duplin

154

Columbus227*





.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Median Days to Reunification, Guardianship, or Custody8 - 210211 - 331332 - 395396 - 485486 - 704Indicates that there were no documented cases of reunification,guardianship, or custody during the measurement period.

Median Days to Reunification, Guardianship, or Custody25 - 190191 - 318319 - 403404 - 519520 - 2,445Indicates that there were no documented cases of reunification,guardianship, or custody during the measurement period.

Median Days to Reunification, Guardianship, or Custody25 - 232233 - 342343 - 416417 - 523524 - 1,174Indicates that there were no documented cases of reunification,guardianship, or custody during the measurement period.

GOAL 6: PERMANENT FAMILIES FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARENC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT

Technical Note: A * indicates a value based on fewer than 10 cases ofreunification, guardianship, or custody during the measurement period.Values based on fewer than 10 cases are considered unstable and should beinterpreted with caution.




14598

12557

10491

25413 19C

422

3B463

20A391

11392

2352

21344

16A190

8267

19A536

18493

13486

30405

28450

27B415 26

431

15B479

9402

3A418

1433

22B376

19D371

19B370*

17A395

7357

29B313

23314

22A336

16B293

15A287

5337

4274

29A250

27A220

24148

20B222

17B238 6

56*


Median Number of Days to Number of Days to Reunification, Guardianship or Custody for Children Aged 0 – 3 byJudicial District, 2017

19C492

10539

8497*

3A2,445*

2371

3B340*

20B169*

20A181*

16A169*

26546

19B694*

17A485

13529*

12569

30425

25476

22B470*

21431*

15B479*

11480

7480*

5426

29A342

28407*

24342*

23409*

22A413

14389*

4357

29B271

27B236 27A

337*

18318*

16B280

9297*

1241*

19D40*

19A218*

17B210*

15A213*

661*



19C511

10556

3B270*

20A224*

2236

30540 26

684

19B1,037*

19A520*

15B890*

14539*

11513

25413

18408*

17A465

13407

12416

8426

7485*

3A421*

28383

27B399

23390

22B376

21360

9363

5342

1370*

29B277

22A308

20B314*

16B261

16A281*

15A259*

6324*

29A186

27A208

24168*

19D132*

17B239

4194





.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Median Days to Reunification, Guardianship, or Custody56 - 267268 - 344345 - 395396 - 479480 - 598

Technical Note: A * indicates a value based on fewer than 10 casesof reunification, guardianship, or custody during the measurementperiod. Values based on fewer than 10 cases are consideredunstable and should be interpreted with caution.

Median Days to Reunification, Guardianship, or Custody40 - 218219 - 340341 - 413414- 480481 - 2,445


Median Days to Reunification, Guardianship, or Custody132 - 239240 - 324325 - 399400 - 485486 - 1,037


NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 6: PERMANENT FAMILIES FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE


Tyrrell

Perquimans

Pamlico

Northampton

Hyde

Hertford

GreeneGraham

Gates

Columbus

Clay

Chowan

Camden

Anson

Alleghany

Alexander

Vance1,310*

Transylvania1,486*

Swain1,427*

Person1,547*

Montgomery1,115*

Martin1,116*

Jackson1,124*

Currituck1,031*

Bertie1,583*

Rowan924*

Orange935

Cleveland1,000*

Cabarrus958*

Brunswick933

Wilson783*

Watauga839

New Hanover807

Mecklenburg799

Madison813* Iredell

868Buncombe851

Warren722*

Onslow749

McDowell661

Catawba687

Burke732*

Stanly457*

Pasquotank322*

Mitchell545

Lee496*

Jones524*

Halifax474*

Carteret635*

Beaufort601*

Avery424*

Scotland

Richmond

Randolph1,051*

Nash1,162*

Macon1,053*

Hoke1,126*

Harnett1,174*

Granville1,127*

Durham1,079

Cumberland1,364

Cherokee1,090*

Wake1,023

Sampson921*

Rockingham918

Pender995*

Henderson918

Haywood891

Franklin987*

Forsyth885

Craven922*

Bladen1,012*

Ashe983*

Yadkin799

Robeson786

Polk769*

Lincoln854*

Lenoir876*

Guilford848

Duplin790*

Dare830*Chatham

868

Yancey659*

Wilkes725

Washington767*

Rutherford734*

Pitt763*Johnston

744

Gaston746

Davie765*Davidson708

Caswell692*

Caldwell711

Wayne559

Union373*

Surry350*

Stokes524*

Moore580*

Edgecombe440*

Alamance570


Median Number of Days to Adoption for Children Aged 0 – 3 by County, 2017

Yancey

Yadkin

Wilson

Warren

Vance

Union

Tyrrell

Transylvania

Swain

Polk

PerquimansPasquotank

Pamlico

Northampton

Mitchell

Martin

Lincoln

JonesHoke

HertfordHalifax

Greene

GrahamCleveland

Clay

Chowan

Carteret

Camden

Anson

Alleghany

Rowan1,547*

Person1,631*

Orange1,670*

Onslow3,232*

Madison1,693*

Jackson1,556*

Franklin1,252*Durham

1,577*

Bertie1,583*

Wake1,127

New Hanover1,220*

Iredell1,089*

Caldwell1,051*

Beaufort1,224*

Alamance1,131*

Watauga926*

Mecklenburg998*

Currituck1,031*

Burke1,048*

Harnett809*

Catawba882*

Cabarrus889*

Brunswick838*

Stanly695*

McDowell687*

Lee426*

Avery424*

Washington

Surry

Scotland

Richmond

Pitt

Pender

MooreMacon

Johnston HydeHaywood

Gates

Duplin

Dare

Columbus

Caswell

Bladen

Ashe

Cumberland2,058*

Cherokee1,608*

Alexander1,765*

Randolph1,094*

Nash1,084*

Montgomery1,087*

Granville1,129*

Sampson933*

Rockingham933*

Robeson911*

Guilford1,015

Craven922*

Chatham987*

Rutherford901*Henderson

834* Gaston891

Forsyth816*

Davie901*Davidson846*

Wilkes583*

Wayne714*

Stokes747*

Lenoir471*

Edgecombe581*

Buncombe771



Vance

Tyrrell

Transylvania

Swain

Pasquotank

Pamlico

Northampton

Jones

Hertford

Currituck

Columbus

Chowan

Camden

Alleghany

Onslow3,232*

New Hanover1,567*

Jackson1,556*

Cleveland1,356*

Brunswick1,085*

Alamance1,267*

Orange938*

Mecklenburg973*

McDowell618* Beaufort

529*

Yancey

Wilson

Wayne

Washington

WarrenSurry Stokes

Stanly

Scotland

Rockingham

Richmond

Polk

Pitt

Person

Perquimans

Pender

Nash

Moore

Martin

Macon

Lincoln

Lenoir

Hyde

Hoke

Harnett

Halifax

Greene

Granville

Graham

Gates

Dare

Craven

Clay

Caswell

Carteret

Bladen

Bertie

Ashe

Anson

Randolph1,644*

Madison1,693*

Johnston1,316*

Henderson1,587*

Franklin2,306*

Cumberland2,062*

Catawba1,430*

Rutherford1,062* Montgomery

1,107*

Guilford1,044*

Edgecombe1,103*

Durham1,177*

Cherokee1,046*

Burke1,241*

Watauga988*

Wake983

Robeson984*

Haywood1,015*

Gaston1,018*

Forsyth969*

Davie998*

Yadkin930*

Union803*

Rowan889*

Iredell860*

Duplin878*

Chatham740*

Caldwell874*

Avery881*

Alexander869*

Wilkes520*

Sampson176*

Mitchell707*

Lee444*

Davidson739*

Cabarrus381*

Buncombe633*





.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Median Days to Adoption322 - 635636 - 767768 - 876877 - 1,0231,024 - 1,583Indicates that there were no documented cases of adoption during themeasurement period.

Median Days to Adoption424 - 771772 - 901902 - 1,0481,049 - 1,2241,225 - 3,232Indicates that there were no documented cases of adoption during themeasurement period.

Median Days to Adoption176 - 739740 - 930931 - 1,0181,019 - 1,2671,268 - 3,232Indicates that there were no documented cases of adoption during themeasurement period.


Technical Note: A * indicates a value based on fewer than 10 cases of adoptionduring the measurement period. Values based on fewer than 10 cases areconsidered unstable and should be interpreted with caution.




16A

141,079

20A990*

19C924*

21885

2862

3B635*

301,053

19D1,035*

19B1,051*

121,364

101,023

91,112

61,041*

29B909

27B904*

19A958*

15B916

13933

1930*

28851

26799

22A868

18848

17A842

5810

27A746

23760

22B733

16B786

11725

7783*

4788

3A763*29A

661

25713

24688

20B373*

17B480

15A570

8573


Median Number of Days to Adoption for Children Aged 0 – 3 by Judicial District, 2017

19D

16A

3A19C1,547*

15B1,447*

141,577*

21,224*

24951*

3B922*

20A704*

11542* 8

593*

27B

20B

301,556*

122,058*

91,323*

61,583*

22A1,089* 19B

1,094*

15A1,131*

101,127

51,220*

41,058*

11,031*

26998*

25984

181,015

17A933*

71,006*

29B834* 27A

891

22B875*

21816*

19A889*

16B911*

13838*

29A688

28771

23583*

17B747*



8

3B

3A19C889*

2529*

19D

17B 17A

16A

6 1

29B1,587*

27B1,356*

19B1,644*

122,062*

92,306*

51,567*

301,031*

20A1,107*

181,044*

15A1,267*

141,177*

131,085*

71,103*

27A1,018*

26973*

24988*

21969*

16B984*

10983

25882

22B849*

22A869*

20B803*

15B839*

4878*

29A635*

28633*

23725*

19A381*

11713





.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Median Days to Adoption373 - 713714 - 788789 - 885886 - 990991 - 1,364Indicates that there were no documeted cases of adoption during themeasurement period.

Median Days to Adoption542 - 771772 - 911912 - 1,0151,016 - 1,2201,221 - 2,058Indicates that there were no documeted cases of adoption during themeasurement period.

Median Days to Adoption381 - 725726 - 882883 - 1,0181,019 - 1,2671,268 - 2,306Indicates that there were no documeted cases of adoption during themeasurement period.





Babies, toddlers, and young children across North Carolina will express, recognize and manage their emotions in ahealthy way, especially under stress.

Social-emotional skills, such as the ability to recognize and manage one’s emotions and the ability to understand theemotions of others, provide a foundation for building trusting relationships that are important at home, school and the workplace. The importance of social-emotional health and resilience for young children is becoming increasingly recognizednationwide. A strong statewide data source on young children’s social-emotional health and resilience does not currentlyexist. North Carolina has an opportunity to be a national leader in developing the ability to track social emotional well-beingfor young children at a state level. The state has already begun work to identify appropriate data sources that would allowfor this to be tracked. As the state explores data sources on social-emotional health and resilience for young children, in thefuture this data would also be disaggregated at the county level.

Promising examples of data sources for monitoring social-emotional health and resilience are outlined below. In the future,such data could be collected on privately insured and uninsured children for seamless and universal representation insocial-emotional health services as well as data tracking. Visit www.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood for more information on thisgoal in the NC Early Childhood Action Plan.

Measures from the National Survey for Children’s Health (NSCH) may provide a useful source for information on children’ssocial-emotional well-being and resilience. The NSCH is a nationwide population-level survey that includes data down to the state level.Vermont, as well as the organization ZERO TO THREE, have utilized composite measures aggregating specific survey questions inorder to evaluate children’s social-emotional well-being and resilience. One example is the health indicator for flourishing for youngchildren, age 6 months through 5 years. This indicator was designed to provide data on child well-being and resilience, and is based onanswers to four survey questions that capture information about domains of thriving.

The Survey of Well-Being of Young Children (SWYC) is a freely-available screening assessment for children under age 5. It assessesthree domains for child functioning: 1) developmental, 2) emotional/behavioral, and 3) family context. Since the screening covers all threeareas in one tool, it may be useful for health providers.

Medicaid claims data: Using modifiers for developmental or behavioral health screens. Following the work of Massachusetts,North Carolina could add modifiers to the Medicaid billing codes for general developmental and behavioral screenings that note thepresence or absence of a developmental/behavioral health need.

Descriptions of Promising Examples of Data Sources

Goal 7: Social-Emotional Health and Resilience


........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 7: SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL HEALTH AND RESILIENCE

NORTH CAROLINA


CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

STATE DATA NOTYET AVAILABLE


Babies, toddlers and young children across North Carolina will be able to participate inhigh-quality early learning programs.

High-quality early care and education programs help prepare children physically, academically, socially and emotionally. Whilechildren from all backgrounds can benefit from attending high-quality and affordable child care and education programs,children facing challenges related to poverty, disabilities or limited English proficiency often benefit the most from theseprograms. A growing amount of evidence shows that high-quality child care programs help children become more on-track forschool success, which supports them in becoming healthy, successful adults.

The data in this section outline key indicators for High-Quality Early Learning at the county level. Visitwww.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood for more information on this goal in the NC Early Childhood Action Plan.

47.4%___________________Percent of EligibleChildren Enrolledin NC Pre-Kin North Carolina,2019

11.6%___________________Percent of MedianFamily IncomeSpent onInfant Carein North Carolina,2017

10.5%___________________Percent of MedianFamily IncomeSpent onToddler Carein North Carolina,2017

10.0%____________________Percent of MedianFamily IncomeSpent onFour-Year-Old Carein North Carolina,2017

50-75%Served____________________Percent of EligibleChildren Enrolledin NC Pre-Kin CumberlandCounty

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

40.5%

59.5%

40.0%

60.0%

41.1%

58.9%

44.7%

55.3%

47.4%

52.6%

YanceyWashington

WarrenVance

Tyrrell

TransylvaniaStanly

Rutherford

Rowan

Rockingham

Randolph

Polk

Person

PerquimansPasquotank

Pamlico

Orange

Onslow

Northampton

New Hanover

Nash

Montgomery

Mitchell

Mecklenburg

McDowell

MartinMadison

Jackson

Hoke

Hertford

Henderson

Granville

Gaston

Durham

Davidson

Currituck

Cumberland

Columbus

Cleveland

Chowan

Catawba

Caswell

Camden

Caldwell

Cabarrus

Burke

Brunswick

Beaufort

Anson

Alleghany

Alamance

Yadkin

Wilson

Wilkes

Wayne

Watauga

Wake

Union

Swain

Surry Stokes

ScotlandSampson

Robeson

Richmond

Pitt

Pender

MooreMacon

Lincoln

Lenoir

Lee

Jones

Johnston

Iredell

HydeHaywood

Harnett

Halifax

Guilford

Greene

Graham

Gates

FranklinForsyth

Edgecombe

Duplin

Davie

Dare

Craven

ClayCherokee

Chatham

Carteret

Buncombe

Bladen

BertieAvery

Ashe

Alexander


Percent of Income-Eligible Children Enrolled in NC Pre-K by County

11.9%________________________Percent ofIncome–EligibleChildren Ages 0 – 2Whose FamiliesReceive Child CareSubsidy and AreEnrolled in 4– or 5–StarCenters and Homes inNorth Carolina,2018

18.4%________________________Percent ofIncome–EligibleChildren Ages 3 – 4Whose FamiliesReceive Child CareSubsidy and AreEnrolled in 4– or 5–StarCenters and Homes inNorth Carolina,2018

10.6%________________________Percent ofIncome–EligibleChildren Ages 0 – 2Whose FamiliesReceive Child CareSubsidy and AreEnrolled in 4– or 5–StarCenters and Homes inCumberland County,2018

19.3%________________________Percent ofIncome–EligibleChildren Ages 3 – 4Whose FamiliesReceive Child CareSubsidy and AreEnrolled in 4– or 5–StarCenters and Homes inCumberland County,2018


Data Sources: NC Pre-K Data: Division for Child Development and Early Education (DCDEE); Percent of Family Income Spent on Child Care: NC Child Care Resource and Referral, Division for Child Development and EarlyEducation (DCDEE), and Child Care Aware America; Child Care Subsidy Data: Division for Child Development and Early Education (DCDEE)

Percent of Income-Eligible Children Enrolled in NC Pre-K in North Carolina

Goal 8: High-Quality Early Learning

Visit www.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood to view the full North Carolina Early Childhood Action Plan.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 27

NORTH CAROLINA





CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

Percent not served Percent served

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Less than 50% Served50-75% ServedOver 75% Served

NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 8: HIGH-QUALITY EARLY LEARNING

Technical note: "COUNTY DATA NOT YET AVAILABLE" indicates that data have not yet been accessed or fully analyzed at the county level. NC DHHS will continue to work towards accessing as much data as possible at thecounty level to support local work.

Yancey17.7%

Vance22.1%

Swain18.1%

Rowan17.5%

Pamlico21.0%

Orange24.8%

Onslow16.7%

Madison17.0%

Jackson20.2%

Hertford17.8%

Henderson16.0%

Clay18.9%

Catawba18.5%

Burke20.8%

Beaufort23.2%

Avery17.6%

Watauga12.8%

Rutherford14.4%

Pasquotank12.6%

Mecklenburg13.5%

Jones13.9%

Iredell12.2%

Gaston12.3%

Durham14.1%Davie

10.9%

Chowan11.0%

Brunswick13.8%

Alleghany11.2%

Transylvania10.5%

Stanly9.7%

Perquimans9.7%

New Hanover10.1%

Montgomery7.0%

McDowell9.9%

Davidson10.3%

Columbus7.4%

Carteret9.3%

Alamance8.6%

Tyrrell0.0%

Polk3.6%

Northampton4.1%

Mitchell2.3%

Martin6.6%

Greene4.2%

Gates5.9%

Currituck2.1%

Cleveland6.7%

Camden1.1%

Cabarrus5.9%

Wilson19.1%

Warren15.4%

Scotland16.3%

Macon31.7%

Haywood28.6%

Graham25.9%

Cherokee29.1%

Caldwell17.6%

Ashe39.0%

Wake13.7%Randolph

12.8%Pitt11.1%

Person12.0%

Pender11.0%

Lincoln12.4%

Granville14.7%

Franklin10.8%

Forsyth11.5%

Duplin12.6%

Craven13.5%

Chatham13.8%Buncombe

15.3%

Anson13.8%

Wilkes9.7%

Union10.6% Sampson

9.3%

Rockingham7.3%

Robeson7.9%

Richmond8.1%

Nash7.2%

Lee7.9%

Johnston9.7%

Hyde8.4%

Harnett9.2%

Halifax10.2%

Guilford10.8%

Cumberland10.6%

Alexander7.3%

Yadkin2.2%

Wayne6.6%

Washington3.9%

Surry1.2%

Stokes5.6%

Moore6.1% Lenoir

5.3%

Hoke6.7%

Edgecombe6.7%

Dare5.9%

Caswell6.7%

Bladen6.1%

Bertie6.5%


Percent of Income–Eligible Children Aged 0 – 2 Whose Families Receive Child Care Subsidyand Are Enrolled in 4– or 5–Star Centers and Homes, 2018

Wilson24.4%

Pamlico29.5%

Orange36.4%

Madison30.5%

Macon52.1% Jones

38.6%

Jackson37.0%

Hertford23.2%

Henderson25.0%

Catawba27.4%

Burke29.0%

Brunswick24.7%

Beaufort37.1%

Vance21.3%

Transylvania20.5%


20.8%

Rowan19.7%

Onslow19.7%

New Hanover17.7%

Mecklenburg20.7%

McDowell19.0%

Iredell18.3%

Gaston18.3%

Durham20.3%

Davie20.5%

Bertie19.0%

Watauga11.7%

Stanly16.8%

Richmond10.6%

Pasquotank15.1%Halifax

13.5%

Davidson16.9%

Columbus15.7%

Chowan11.0%

Carteret12.4%

Cabarrus10.2%

Avery16.6%

Alleghany11.1%

Alamance14.7%Yancey

9.6% Washington6.1% Tyrrell

5.5%

Northampton5.5%

Montgomery6.9%

Mitchell2.2%

Greene5.2%

Currituck4.6%

Cleveland7.5%

Camden0.0%

Warren24.4%

Wake21.7%

Scotland23.2%

Martin22.5%

Haywood39.2%

Graham30.6% Craven

21.7%Cherokee24.7%

Chatham22.2%

Caldwell33.0%

Buncombe23.6%

Ashe46.1%

Union18.8%

Randolph19.6%

Pitt20.9%

Person20.1%

Lincoln19.5%

Guilford18.1%

Granville18.3%

Franklin18.6%

Forsyth18.8%

Cumberland19.3%

Clay17.5%

Wayne11.1%

Sampson12.1%

Robeson15.4%

Perquimans10.6%

Pender17.1%

Lee13.1%

Johnston16.8%

Harnett15.6%

Edgecombe13.5%

Duplin17.0%

Anson17.1%

Alexander12.1%

Yadkin0.4%

Wilkes9.6%

Surry3.5%

Stokes9.7%

Rockingham9.4%

Polk2.0%

Nash9.7%

Moore6.9% Lenoir

7.3%

Hyde2.7%

Hoke8.2%

Gates6.8%

Dare6.1%

Caswell9.0%

Bladen9.9%


Percent of Income–Eligible Children Aged 3 – 4 Whose Families Receive Child Care Subsidyand Are Enrolled in 4– or 5–Star Centers and Homes, 2018



.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Percent of Income-Eligible Receiving Subsidyand Enrolled in 4- or 5-Star Centers and Homes

0.0% - 9.9%10.0% - 17.1%17.2% - 21.3%21.4% - 52.1%

Percent of Income-Eligible Receiving Subsidyand Enrolled in 4- or 5-Star Centers and Homes

Data Source: Division of Child Development and Early Education (DCDEE), NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS)

0.00% - 7.00%7.01% - 10.80%10.81% - 15.30%15.31% - 39.00%

NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 8: HIGH-QUALITY EARLY LEARNING

Goal 9: On Track for School Success

Young children across North Carolina will reach their developmental goals by the time they enterKindergarten.

A child’s development when they enter kindergarten has been linked to success in school and into adulthood. Assessments ofa child’s ongoing development before they get to kindergarten allow for referrals and services for the supports a child mayneed to reach his or her developmental goals. North Carolina is committed to ensuring that all children will enter kindergartenhaving received the health and learning supports they needed along the way. There is no singular method to measure orassess a child’s developmental abilities, and thereby deem them “ready” or not for school. Therefore, the NC Early ChildhoodAction Plan includes multiple sub-targets that address developmental screening and supports for children who need them toachieve their developmental goals.

The data in this section outline key indicators for On-Track for School Success at the county level. Visitwww.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood for more information on this goal in the NC Early Childhood Action Plan.


49.9% Proficient_____________________Percent of StudentsEntering KindergartenProficient inNorth CarolinaAccording toKindergartenEntry Assessment,2018

73.2%_________________Percent of ChildrenEnrolled inMedicaidReceiving GeneralDevelopmentalScreening inFirst Three Yearsof Life inNorth Carolina,2017

5.8%_____________________Percent of ChildrenWho Received Servicesthrough the NCPreschoolExceptionalChildren Programto AddressDevelopmentalRisks and Delaysas Compared toCensus Datain North Carolina,2018

3.2%_____________________Percent of ChildrenWho Received Servicesthrough the NCPreschoolExceptionalChildren Programto AddressDevelopmentalRisks and Delaysas Compared toCensus Datain Cumberland,2018

2.4%_____________________Percent of ChildrenWho Received Servicesthrough the NCInfant Toddler Programto AddressDevelopmentalRisks and Delays asCompared toCensus Datain Cape FearChildren'sDevelopmentalServices Agency,2018

2.9%_____________________Percent of ChildrenWho Received Servicesthrough the NCInfant Toddler Programto AddressDevelopmentalRisks and Delays asCompared toCensus Datain North Carolina,2018

78.2%_____________________Percent of ChildrenWho Received Servicesthrough the NCInfant Toddler Program,Entered the ProgramBelow AgeExpectations for theKnowledge and SkillsOutcome Measure,and SubstantiallyIncreased Their Rateof Growth by theTime They Exitedthe Program inNorth Carolina,2018

66.1%_____________________Percent of ChildrenWho Received Servicesthrough the NCInfant Toddler Program,Entered the ProgramBelow AgeExpectations for theKnowledge and SkillsOutcome Measure,and SubstantiallyIncreased Their Rateof Growth by theTime They Exitedthe Program inCape FearChildren'sDevelopmentalServices Agency,2018

72.1%_____________________Percent of ChildrenWho Received Servicesthrough the NCInfant Toddler Program,Entered the ProgramBelow AgeExpectations for theSocial RelationshipsOutcome Measure,and SubstantiallyIncreased Their Rateof Growth by theTime They Exitedthe Program inNorth Carolina,2018

56.5%_____________________Percent of ChildrenWho Received Servicesthrough the NCInfant Toddler Program,Entered the ProgramBelow AgeExpectations for theSocial RelationshipsOutcome Measure,and SubstantiallyIncreased Their Rateof Growth by theTime They Exitedthe Program inCape FearChildren'sDevelopmentalServices Agency,2018


Technical note: "COUNTY DATA NOT YET AVAILABLE" indicates that data have not yet been accessed or fully analyzed at the county level. NC DHHS will continue to work towards accessing as much data as possible at thecounty level to support local work.

Data Sources: Kindergarten Entry Assessment Data: NC Department of Public Instruction; Developmental Screening Data: NC Medicaid Child Core Set; Infant Toddler Program Data: NC Early Intervention Branch, NC Divisionof Public Health (DPH), NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS); NC Preschool Exceptional Children Program Data: NC Department of Public Instruction

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

NORTH CAROLINA


CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM



NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 9: ON TRACK FOR SCHOOL SUCCESS

Watauga10.6%

Tyrrell9.9%

Perquimans11.4%

Pamlico9.6%

Martin12.9%

Macon12.0% Jones

10.8%

Davie12.8%

Clay12.6%

Camden15.5%

Beaufort9.3%

Avery13.1%

Anson8.9%

Alleghany12.3%

Wake6.9%

Swain7.8%

Stanly6.6%

Pasquotank7.0%

Northampton8.1%

McDowell7.4%

Johnston7.7% Greene

7.8%

Gates8.2%

Davidson6.8%

Columbus7.5%

Cherokee7.5%

Cabarrus7.6%

Alamance7.4%

Yancey5.6%

Transylvania6.0%

Orange5.8%Mitchell

6.2%

Madison6.1%

Jackson6.3%

Haywood6.4%

Granville6.3%

Durham5.6%

Cleveland5.7%

Chowan5.7%

Carteret5.9%

Alexander6.5%

Vance2.1%

Rowan5.2%

Onslow2.4%

New Hanover4.2%

Montgomery4.7%

Mecklenburg3.9%

Iredell5.5%

Hertford3.9%

Henderson4.9%

Catawba5.4%

Brunswick5.5%

Stokes12.7%

Rockingham9.7%

Robeson13.6%

Polk8.6%

Pender10.2%

Hyde12.0%

Currituck11.1%

Chatham9.7%

Caldwell10.4%

Burke10.5%

Ashe9.0%

Yadkin7.2%

Wilkes8.0%

Warren6.9%

Surry7.3%

Richmond7.5%

Nash6.6%

Lee7.0%

Halifax7.1%

Graham7.9%

Dare6.9%

Caswell8.0%

Wayne6.2%

Union5.6%

Scotland5.7%

Rutherford5.7%

Randolph5.7%

Person6.4%

Moore6.1%

Lincoln5.9%

Lenoir5.7%

Forsyth5.7%

Craven6.1%

Bladen5.8%

Wilson2.5%

Washington4.6%

Sampson2.8%

Pitt4.2%

Hoke4.8%

Harnett2.9%

Guilford5.1%

Gaston4.9%

Franklin3.5%

Edgecombe4.2%

Duplin5.5%

Cumberland3.2%

Buncombe4.8%

Bertie4.1%


Percent of Children Who Receive NC Preschool Exceptional Children Services to Address Developmental Risksand Delays as Compared to Census Data by County, 2018

Winston-Salem3.3%

Western NC2.9%

Rocky Mount2.6%Raleigh

3.4%

New Bern2.2%

Morganton2.9%

Greenville2.8%

Greensboro2.8%

Elizabeth City3.4%Durham

2.7%

Concord3.1%

Charlotte2.7%

Blue Ridge3.8%

Shelby3.5%

Sandhills3.3%

Cape Fear2.4%


Percent of Children Who Receive NC Infant Toddler Program Services to Address Developmental Risks and Delaysas Compared to Census Data by Children's Developmental Services Agency, 2018



.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Percent of Children Aged 3 – 5 Who ReceiveNC Preschool Exceptional Children Servicesto Address Developmental Risks and Delaysas Compared to Census Data

Data Source: NC Preschool Exceptional Children Program, NC Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI)

2.1% - 5.5%5.6% - 6.5%6.6% - 8.2%8.3% - 15.5%

Data Source: NC Early Intervention Branch, NC Division of Public Health (DPH), NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS)


Winston-Salem88.8%

Western NC75.3%

Rocky Mount83.8%Raleigh

82.0%

New Bern53.8%

Morganton67.0%

Greenville51.0%

Greensboro90.2%


70.6%

Concord87.9%

Charlotte77.0%

Blue Ridge71.7%

Shelby93.2%

Sandhills76.5%

Cape Fear66.1%


Percent of Children Who Received NC Infant Toddler Program Services, Entered the Program Below Age Expectations for the Knowledgeand Skills Outcome Measure, and Substantially Increased Their Rate of Growth by the Time They Exited the Program by Children'sDevelopmental Services Agency, 2018

Winston-Salem84.0%

Western NC67.8%

Rocky Mount80.6%

Raleigh72.7%

New Bern55.6%

Morganton68.1%

Greenville50.2%

Greensboro83.2%


56.0%

Concord78.1%

Charlotte74.0%

Blue Ridge64.1%

Shelby94.3%

Sandhills70.5%

Cape Fear56.5%


Percent of Children Who Received NC Infant Toddler Program Services, Entered the Program Below Age Expectations for the SocialRelationships Outcome Measure, and Substantially Increased Their Rate of Growth by the Time They Exited the Program by Children'sDevelopmental Services Agency, 2018



.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................




Young children across North Carolina will read on grade level in elementary school, with aparticular focus on African American, American Indian, and Hispanic children who face thegreatest systemic barriers to reading success.

Reading at grade-level in third grade is linked to children’s early success in school, graduating ready for college or a careerafter high school, and becoming productive adults. Beyond third grade, time in the classroom is less and less devoted to thefundamentals of learning to read, so learning to read well early is important for young children. It is often said that a child learnsto read until third grade and then reads to learn after third grade. Across North Carolina and the country, there are significantdifferences in reading achievement by race and ethnicity because of systemic factors that hold students back from being ableto reach their full potential.

The data in this section outline key indicators for Reading at Grade Level at the county level. Visitwww.ncdhhs.gov/early-childhood for more information on this goal in the NC Early Childhood Action Plan.

45.0%___________________________Percent of Third GradeStudents College andCareer Ready on NCEnd of Grade Assessmentfor Third Grade Readingin North Carolina, 2018

66.4%___________________________Percent of KindergartenStudents DemonstratingReading ComprehensionAt or Above Grade Levelon mCLASS Reading3D Assessmentin North Carolina, 2017

52.1%___________________________Percent of First GradeStudents DemonstratingReading ComprehensionAt or Above Grade Levelon mCLASS Reading3D Assessmentin North Carolina, 2017

55.8%___________________________Percent of Second GradeStudents DemonstratingReading ComprehensionAt or Above Grade Levelon mCLASS Reading3D Assessmentin North Carolina, 2017

44.4%___________________________Percent of Third GradeStudents College andCareer Ready on NCEnd of Grade Assessmentfor Third Grade Readingin Cumberland CountySchools, 2018

55.8%___________________________Percent of KindergartenStudents DemonstratingReading ComprehensionAt or Above Grade Levelon mCLASS Reading3D Assessment inCumberland CountySchools, 2017

44.9%___________________________Percent of First GradeStudents DemonstratingReading ComprehensionAt or Above Grade Levelon mCLASS Reading3D Assessment inCumberland CountySchools, 2017

51.9%___________________________Percent of Second GradeStudents DemonstratingReading ComprehensionAt or Above Grade Levelon mCLASS Reading3D Assessment inCumberland CountySchools, 2017


Goal 10: Reading at Grade Level


Data Sources: mCLASS Reading 3D Assessment Data: Duke Center for Child and Family Policy, North Carolina Education Research Data Center and NC Department of Public Instruction; End of Grade Assessment Data: NCDepartment of Public Instruction

NORTH CAROLINA


CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 10: READING AT GRADE LEVEL

2015 2016 20170.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Percent of Kindergarten Students Demonstrating Reading Comprehension At

or Above Grade Level

56.2%

65.8%

55.8%

66.4%

60.1%62.9%

Percent of Kindergarten Students Demonstrating Reading Comprehensionon mCLASS Reading 3D Assessment

Yadkin

RandolphPitt

Orange

Lee

Chowan

BuncombeRandolph

Alleghany

Alexander

Vance

StanlyPolk

Perquimans

Onslow

Northampton

Jackson

Iredell

Harnett

Granville

Davie

Currituck

CravenMecklenburg

Carteret

Cabarrus Wayne

Stokes

Scotland

Moore

McDowellCatawba

HertfordHalifax

Guilford

Gates

GastonCleveland

Cherokee

Catawba

Brunswick

Beaufort

Ashe

Watauga

WashingtonTyrrell

Robeson

Halifax

Pasquotank

Montgomery

Martin

Lenoir

JonesHoke

Greene

Edgecombe

Cumberland

Bertie

Anson

Alamance

Wilson

Columbus

Wake

Union

Davidson

Surry

Richmond

Pender

Pamlico

IredellLincoln

Henderson

Surry

Davidson Dare

Sampson

Chatham

Orange

Camden

Buncombe

Yancey

Wilkes

Person

New Hanover

Surry

HydeHaywood

CaldwellAvery

Transylvania

SwainRutherford

Rockingham

Mitchell

Madison

Macon

Johnston

Durham

Duplin

Caswell

Burke

HalifaxWarren

Rowan

Nash

Cabarrus

Graham

FranklinForsyth

Clay

Bladen


Percent of Kindergarten Students Demonstrating Reading Comprehension on mCLASS Reading 3D Assessment bySchool District, 2017

Data Source: Duke Center for Child and Family Policy, North Carolina Education Research Data Center and NC Department of Public Instruction

Technical note: Unshaded areas include Camp Lejeune Schools, Fort Bragg Schools, and Eastern Cherokee Reservation, for which mCLASS TRC Assessment data are unavailable. County names may be listed multiple timeson map in counties where multiple school districts exist.


School District NameCumberland County SchoolsNorth Carolina


CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

NORTH CAROLINA


27.1% - 57.2%57.3% - 65.9%66.0% - 71.9%72.0% - 83.5%

Percent of Kindergarten StudentsDemonstrating Reading ComprehensionAt or Above Grade Level

GOAL 10: READING AT GRADE LEVELNC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT

VS.

2015 2016 20170.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Percent of First Grade Students Demonstrating Reading Comprehension At or

Above Grade Level

40.4%40.3%

50.1%44.9%

49.7%52.1%

Percent of First Grade Students Demonstrating Reading Comprehensionon mCLASS Reading 3D Assessment

Wilson

Union

Davidson

Richmond

Polk

Pitt

PerquimansGranville

Chowan

Dare

Currituck

Sampson

Buncombe

Orange

Onslow

Moore

Lincoln

Jackson

Iredell

HydeHarnettGaston

Davie

Cherokee

Chatham

Mecklenburg

Carteret

Brunswick

Beaufort

Washington

Stanly

Rockingham Person

McDowell

Gates

Forsyth

Edgecombe

CumberlandCraven

Columbus

Cleveland

Catawba

Camden

Alleghany

Alamance

Vance

Tyrrell

Scotland

Pamlico

Northampton

Catawba

Montgomery

Martin

Lenoir

JonesHoke

Hertford

Greene

Bertie

Anson

Yadkin

Wake

SurrySurry

Iredell

Madison

Macon

Henderson

Surry

Davidson

Clay

Orange

Cabarrus

AlexanderYancey

Wilkes

WayneTransylvania

Stokes

Pender

Lee JohnstonHaywood

Randolph

Watauga

Halifax

Pasquotank

New Hanover

GuilfordDurham

Duplin

Caldwell

Burke

Bladen

Avery

AsheHalifaxWarren

SwainRutherford

Rowan

Robeson

NashMitchell

Cabarrus

Halifax

Graham

Franklin

Caswell


Percent of First Grade Students Demonstrating Reading Comprehension on mCLASS Reading 3D Assessment bySchool District, 2017






CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

NORTH CAROLINA


Percent of First Grade StudentsDemonstrating Reading ComprehensionAt or Above Grade Level

10.6% - 41.6%41.7% - 50.1%50.2% - 58.4%58.4% - 79.5%

NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 10: READING AT GRADE LEVEL

VS.

2015 2016 20170.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Percent of Second Grade Students Demonstrating Reading Comprehension

At or Above Grade Level

48.2%

55.6%

47.0%

55.8%51.9%53.2%

Percent of Second Grade Students Demonstrating ReadingComprehension on mCLASS Reading 3D Assessment

Yadkin

Wilson

Union

Pitt

Orange

Onslow

Jackson

Catawba

Chowan

Currituck

Carteret

Cabarrus

Randolph

AlleghanyRockingham

Randolph

Polk

Iredell

Gaston

Davie

Davidson

Cleveland

Cherokee

Buncombe

Bladen

Beaufort

Transylvania

Stokes

Stanly

Pender

Northampton

Moore

McDowell

FranklinForsyth

Edgecombe

CumberlandCravenMecklenburg

Catawba

Washington

WarrenVance

Tyrrell

Scotland

Rowan

Robeson

Halifax

PamlicoMontgomery

Martin

Lenoir

Cabarrus

Hoke

Hertford

Greene

Gates

Camden

Brunswick

Bertie

Anson

Yancey

Columbus

Wake

Surry

Richmond

Pasquotank

Iredell

Madison

Henderson

Dare

Clay

Orange

Buncombe

Alexander

Wilkes

Wayne

Watauga

New Hanover

Surry

Macon

Lincoln

Davidson

Lee Johnston

Harnett

Guilford

GranvilleSurry

Columbus

Caldwell

BurkeDavidson

Sampson

Person

Perquimans

NashMitchell

Jones

HydeHaywood

Durham

Chatham

Avery

Ashe

Alamance

Halifax

SwainRutherford

Halifax

Graham

DuplinSampson

Caswell


Percent of Second Grade Students Demonstrating Reading Comprehension on mCLASS Reading 3D Assessmentby School District, 2017






CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

NORTH CAROLINA


Percent of Second Grade StudentsDemonstrating Reading ComprehensionAt or Above Grade Level

14.5% - 47.0%%47.1% - 54.0%54.1% - 60.3%60.4% - 72.6%

NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 10: READING AT GRADE LEVEL

VS.

2014 2015 2016 2017 20180.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Percent Demonstrating Reading Comprehension

46.5% 46.1%

44.9%45.0%46.5%

44.6%46.0%47.7%

44.4%

47.8%

Percent of Third Grade Students Scoring College and Career Proficiencyon Third Grade End of Grade Assessments for Reading

Union

Perquimans

Iredell

Moore

Jones

Henderson

Davie

Dare

Currituck

Cherokee

Chatham

Orange

Carteret

Camden

Buncombe

Stanly

Sampson

Rutherford

Pender

Pamlico

Onslow

Catawba

Mitchell

McDowell

Iredell

CumberlandCravenCleveland Mecklenburg

Brunswick

Beaufort

Wilson

Tyrrell

Pitt

PersonPasquotank

Orange

Montgomery

Davidson

Lenoir

Johnston

Jackson

Hoke

Hertford

HarnettGaston

Franklin Chowan

Columbus

Alleghany

Alamance

Columbus

Wayne

Washington

Vance

Scotland

Rowan

Robeson

Northampton

Nash

Martin

Greene

Gates

Edgecombe

Bladen

Bertie

Randolph

Anson

Yancey

Watauga

Wake

Transylvania

Stokes

Polk

New Hanover

Madison

Macon

Lincoln

Catawba

Haywood

Surry

Clay

CaswellAshe

YadkinWilkes

Surry

Graham

Caldwell

Cabarrus

Burke

Avery

Alexander

Swain

RockinghamSurry

Lee Hyde

GuilfordForsyth

HalifaxWarren

Richmond

Cabarrus

Halifax

Granville

Durham

Duplin


Percent of Third Grade Students Scoring College and Career Ready Proficiency on NC End of Grade Assessment for ThirdGrade Reading by School District, 2018


Technical note: Unshaded areas include Camp Lejeune Schools, Fort Bragg Schools, and Eastern Cherokee Reservation, for which End of Grade Assessment data are unavailable. County names may be listed multiple timeson map in counties where multiple school districts exist.




CUMBERLANDCOUNTY

© Mapbox © OSM

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

NORTH CAROLINA


Percent of Third Grade Students ScoringCollege and Career Ready Proficiency

GOAL 10: READING AT GRADE LEVELNC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT

VS.

21.2% - 35.4%35.5% - 42.1%42.2% - 47.2%47.2 - 66.7%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

North Carolina

CumberlandCounty Schools

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%


31.6%

46.5%

19.6%

60.6%

29.2%

31.2%

46.1%

60.3%

31.2%

28.9%

64.8%65.8%66.7%

32.7%

61.1%59.3%

17.4%

66.9%

28.1%

18.9%

31.6%

24.5%

17.5%

59.7%

17.3%17.3%

45.0%

21.1%18.5%

20.0%20.2%

33.5%

30.8%

61.7%

30.4%

67.0%

47.7%47.8%

34.8%

24.5%23.7%

27.9%

36.6% 36.8%

66.2%64.4%

69.4%

60.8%60.9%

49.2% 47.3%

17.9%16.4%

62.6%

33.0%

14.2%

63.4%63.4%

59.9%

44.9%

23.5%

45.1%

58.8%

14.1%14.1%

19.3%

28.9%33.2%

44.8%

33.0%

38.7%

46.5%44.4%

59.1%

44.6%46.0%

32.5%37.2%

44.4%37.3%

34.0%

Percent of Third Grade Students Scoring College and Career Proficiency on Third Grade End of Grade Assessments forReading in North Carolina and Cumberland County by Subgroups

SubgroupAllAmerican Indian, Non-HispanicAsian, Non-HispanicBlack, Non-HispanicEconomically Disadvantaged

English LearnerFoster CareHispanicHomelessLimited English Proficient

Military-ConnectedStudents With DisabilitiesWhite, Non-Hispanic


Data Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

Technical Notes: Data collection and reporting for certain subgroups (Homeless, Foster Care, English Learner, Military-Connected) did not begin until 2018, as indicated by singular dots of data for these subgroups in 2018.Performance results greater than 95 percent are masked as ">95%" and are shown at the 95.0% value line. Results less than 5 percent are masked as "<5%" and are shown at the 5.0% value line. Data containing less than 10scores/students are masked and are shown at the 0.0% value line and indicated by a * in the above chart. If no data for a particular subgroup was collected for a certain year, "No Data" is shown for that subgroup and year.


.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT GOAL 10: READING AT GRADE LEVEL

Additional County Data Resources

Below are additional data resources that can be used to inform county-level decision-making for young children and families in Cumberland County.

Data Resource Description Webpage Link

Child Care Services Association - Who’s Caring for OurBabies? Early Care and Education in North CarolinaRegion Report

www.childcareservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/IT-State-Report-region-5-7-28.pdf

Child Care Services Association Early Care and EducationWorkforce Region Factsheet

www.childcareservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/regional-factsheets_Part5.pdf

Child Trends DataBank https://www.childtrends.org/indicators?a-z

Community Health Assessment - 2016 www.co.cumberland.nc.us/docs/default-source/health-documents/annual-reports-chs-sotch/community_health_assessment-2016.pdf?sfvrsn=f019fb26_2

NC Child County Data Card www.ncchild.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Cumberland.pdf

North Carolina Association of County CommissionersCounty Map Book

www.ncacc.org/794/2019-County-Map-Book

United States Census Bureau American FactFinderDownload Center

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/download_center.xhtml

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT ADDITIONAL COUNTY DATA RESOURCES

AcknowledgementsThe NC Early Childhood Action Plan County Data Reports were made possible through the energy and contributions of leaders and experts inearly childhood data from across the state. In particular, these reports would not be possible without the invaluable data analysts who provideddata to support them. A special thanks is owed to this diverse group of contributing individuals and the organizations they represent, listedbelow.

Key Contributors

Child Care Services Association

Community Care of North Carolina

Duke Center for Child and Family Policy

Head Start State Collaboration Office

NC Department of Public Instruction

NC Department of Public Instruction, NC Preschool Exceptional Children Program

NC DHHS Division of Aging and Adult Services, ESG Homeless Programs

NC DHHS Division of Child Development and Early Education

NC DHHS Division of Public Health, Children's Environmental Health

NC DHHS Division of Public Health, Early Intervention Branch

NC DHHS Division of Public Health, Immunization Branch

NC DHHS Division of Public Health, Injury and Violence Prevention Branch

NC DHHS Division of Public Health, Nutrition Services Branch

NC DHHS Division of Public Health, State Center for Health Statistics

NC DHHS Divison of Social Services, Child Welfare Performance Management, Data Reporting & Analytics

NC DHHS NC Medicaid

NC Homelessness Management Information System

NC Judicial Branch, Court Programs Division, Juvenile Court Improvement Program

Special thanks to early childhood leaders from the NC DHHS Early Childhood Action Plan Implementation Team, NC Partnership for Children,and Yadkin County, who provided ongoing support and feedback. Recognition is provided to the NC DHHS Office of the Secretary EarlyChildhood Team, including Hayley Young, who led the development of these reports.


........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................NC EARLY CHILDHOOD ACTION PLAN: CUMBERLAND COUNTY DATA REPORT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

north carolina early childhood action plannc early childhood action plan: cumberland county data...

Documents