CS #43 -- Subordination (or amplification): "My essay is about my mother, because she is someone that everybody needs." or  "My essay is about my mother -- she is someone that everybody needs."
CS #44 -- Subordination (and length): With the second main clause subordinated, the single main clause is 17 words long, twice the 8.4 average of the passage. "When I got home my father was home, so my mother told my dad about what happened." Note also that the writer used "so" in the preceding main clause and may not have wanted to repeat it.

RO #75 -- Subordination: This may be an interesting example of the difficulty posed by mid-branching clauses (between the subject and verb). The writer may have been aiming for "One time me and my mother were walking down town, and this man who was drunk was yelling at me and my mother." But putting "drunk" into a subordinate clause reduces the emphasis on it, something that this writer may not have wanted to do. Another difficulty with mid-branching is that once the ideas come out as a main clause ("this man was drunk"), most writers will not go back to revise before finishing the sentence. Once the sentence was completed, however, this writer had more important things on her mind (See the context.) than going back to fix a run-on.
RO #76 -- Other: Technically, this does not fit my definition of a run-on. I could have considered "so went went home" as a subordinate clause. ("My mother grabbed my hand and said, "Billy, Let's go" so went went home.")  I counted it as a run-on so I could mention the problem that it posed for the student --What punctuation mark belongs after the "go"? A period would end the sentence within the quotation, but does one put a period at the end of a quotation within a sentence that does not end with the quotation? I myself am still puzzled about this. I would suggest that the writer's ouzzlement is reflected in the "went went" in place of "we went." Her STM was probably overloaded in its attempt to resolve the punctuation problem. 
RO #77 -- Other (or Subordiation or Contrast): This could be just a careless error, but I am counting  it in the "Other" category because I can't decide whether it should go in "Subordination" or "Contrast." The last main clause could be turned into a subordinate clause of result -- "He thought it was very funny, but it wasn't funny at all so I think he was just laughing because he probaly wouldnt have been sceared at all." On the other hand, the student was dealing with a double contrast -- "was funny, but ... wasn't funny" and "He thought . . . .; I think . . . ." Unsure of how to handle the options, but still sensing that the clauses go together, the student may have simply run them together.
RO #78 -- Amplification: "She also cooks food for the whole family -- she does a good job of it."
RO #79 -- Amplification: "My mom works at Rose Hill -- it's a place where nurses take care of old people."
RO #80 -- Subordination (or amplification): This is an interesting case of a possible slipped pattern. Having gotten to "have to say," the writer may have treated the last clause as the direct object of "to say" -- I have to say [RNDOI love her very much.]" This would probably be considered acceptable if the contraction had been expanded and a comma had been put after "thing" -- "There is one thing, I have to say [RNDOI love her very much.]" This would make the "I have" clause an appositive to "thing." But that clause could have also been treated as amplification: "There is one thing -- I have to say [RNDOI love her very much.]" But still another option would be to make the "I love her" clause an amplification -- "There's one thing I have to say -- I love her very much." Here again, the error, if it is a competence error, probably results from the complexity of the possible choices the student was faced with.