FFY 2007 CCDF Data Tables (Preliminary Estimates)
Index: 1-Average Monthly Families and Children Served | 2-Percent of Children Served by Payment Method | 3-Percent of Children Served by Types of Care | 4-Percent of Children Served in Regulated Settings vs.Settings Legally Operating without Regulation | 5-Percent Served by Relatives vs. Non-Relatives | 6-Percent of Children Served in All Types of Care | 7-Number of Child Care Providers Receiving CCDF Funds | 8-Methods of Consumer Education Summary | 9-Children Served by Age Group | 10-Children Served by Reason for Care | 11-Children by Racial Group | 12-Children by Latino Ethnicity | 13-Care by Age Category and Type of Care | 14-Care By Age Group and Care Type | 15-Expenditures By Age Group and Care Type | 16-TANF as a Source of Income | 17-Co-payment as a Percent of Family IncomeThe entire collection of tables is also available in Excel or PDF format.
| Table 3 Child Care and Development Fund Preliminary Estimates Average Monthly Percentages of Children Served by Types of Care (FFY 2007) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Child's Home | Family Home | Group Home | Center | Invalid/ Not Reported | Total |
| Alabama | 0% | 14% | 3% | 82% | 1% | 100% |
| Alaska | 16% | 30% | 7% | 48% | 0% | 100% |
| American Samoa | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Arizona | 3% | 15% | 7% | 75% | 0% | 100% |
| Arkansas | 0% | 17% | 0% | 83% | 0% | 100% |
| California | 4% | 38% | 10% | 45% | 0% | 100% |
| Colorado | 3% | 25% | 0% | 72% | 3% | 100% |
| Connecticut | 22% | 30% | 0% | 43% | 3% | 100% |
| Delaware | 3% | 34% | 3% | 58% | 0% | 100% |
| District of Columbia | 0% | 5% | 0% | 95% | 1% | 100% |
| Florida | 1% | 10% | 0% | 80% | 0% | 100% |
| Georgia | 1% | 12% | 2% | 85% | 0% | 100% |
| Guam | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Hawaii | 17% | 50% | 0% | 30% | 0% | 100% |
| Idaho | 1% | 32% | 15% | 51% | 0% | 100% |
| Illinois | 20% | 44% | 1% | 31% | 0% | 100% |
| Indiana | 1% | 43% | 0% | 32% | 0% | 100% |
| Iowa | 0% | 54% | 6% | 40% | 0% | 100% |
| Kansas | 5% | 21% | 40% | 34% | 0% | 100% |
| Kentucky | 0% | 16% | 2% | 82% | 0% | 100% |
| Louisiana | 10% | 11% | 0% | 77% | 0% | 100% |
| Maine | 3% | 43% | 0% | 54% | 0% | 100% |
| Maryland | 11% | 47% | 0% | 42% | 0% | 100% |
| Massachusetts | 3% | 1% | 26% | 70% | 0% | 100% |
| Michigan | 28% | 44% | 10% | 17% | 1% | 100% |
| Minnesota | 13% | 47% | 0% | 37% | 0% | 100% |
| Mississippi | 3% | 21% | 1% | 76% | 0% | 100% |
| Missouri | 1% | 39% | 2% | 51% | 2% | 100% |
| Montana | 4% | 20% | 39% | 38% | 0% | 100% |
| Nebraska | 0% | 38% | 8% | 54% | 0% | 100% |
| Nevada | 8% | 6% | 1% | 67% | 0% | 100% |
| New Hampshire | 6% | 32% | 0% | 62% | 1% | 100% |
| New Jersey | 2% | 18% | 0% | 81% | 4% | 100% |
| New Mexico | 1% | 32% | 6% | 61% | 2% | 100% |
| New York | 16% | 40% | 11% | 31% | 0% | 100% |
| North Carolina | 0% | 16% | 0% | 84% | 1% | 100% |
| North Dakota | 0% | 42% | 33% | 25% | 0% | 100% |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 7% | 37% | 7% | 49% | 0% | 100% |
| Ohio | 0% | 30% | 2% | 68% | 9% | 100% |
| Oklahoma | 0% | 25% | 0% | 75% | 0% | 100% |
| Oregon | 21% | 56% | 4% | 17% | 0% | 100% |
| Pennsylvania | 3% | 42% | 4% | 52% | 2% | 100% |
| Puerto Rico | 5% | 26% | 1% | 61% | 2% | 100% |
| Rhode Island | 0% | 34% | 0% | 65% | 0% | 100% |
| South Carolina | 5% | 16% | 3% | 77% | 0% | 100% |
| South Dakota | 1% | 47% | 0% | 52% | 0% | 100% |
| Tennessee | 1% | 15% | 5% | 79% | 0% | 100% |
| Texas | 5% | 11% | 2% | 82% | 0% | 100% |
| Utah | 11% | 43% | 7% | 39% | 2% | 100% |
| Vermont | 0% | 50% | 0% | 50% | 2% | 100% |
| Virgin Islands | 8% | 0% | 4% | 87% | 0% | 100% |
| Virginia | 6% | 30% | 1% | 60% | 0% | 100% |
| Washington | 11% | 32% | 0% | 57% | 14% | 100% |
| West Virginia | 0% | 33% | 5% | 60% | 0% | 100% |
| Wisconsin | 0% | 32% | 0% | 68% | 4% | 100% |
| Wyoming | 6% | 26% | 5% | 63% | 50% | 100% |
| National Total | 6% | 28% | 5% | 59% | 1% | 100% |
Notes applicable to this table:
| 1. | The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FFY 2007. In years prior to FFY 2005, this table was based on the ACF-800 rather than the ACF-801. The CCB decided to use ACF-801 data wherever possible because it is now considered more representative. | |||||||
| 2. | All counts are "adjusted" numbers of families and children unless otherwise indicated. These "adjusted" numbers represent the number funded through CCDF only. The "adjusted" number is the raw or "unadjusted" number reported by the State multiplied by its pooling factor as reported on the ACF-800. DC has indicated that the pooling factor reported on the ACF-800 is not applicable to the ACF-801. This report takes this factor into consideration in calculating the "adjusted" numbers or percentages. National percentages are based on the "adjusted" national numbers unless otherwise indicated. In other words, the national percentages are equivalent to a weighted average of the State percentages, where the weights are the "adjusted" number of families or children served as appropriate. | |||||||
| 3 | A "0%" indication often means the value is less than 0.5% rather than actually zero. In a few instances, the sum of the categories may not appear to add up to exactly 100% because of rounding. | |||||||
| 4. | At the time of publication, American Samoa and Guam had not yet reported ACF-801 data for FFY 2007. | |||||||
| 5. | Some children are reported to have multiple settings for the same month. If a child was in more than one setting category within the same month, the child was counted in each setting in proportion to the number of hours of service received in each setting. For example if the child spent 70-hours in a center and 30-hours in a child's home, the child would be scored as 0.7 count in Center and 0.3 count in Child's Home (proportional counting). | |||||||
| 6. | For consistency with related reports involving setting data, the Invalid/Not Reported category includes children with any element of any setting identified as invalid or not reported including zero hours served, zero cost, or no setting records. | |||||||
| 7. | The current Wyoming processing system is unable to extract a number of hours for full- and part-day authorizations resulting in a high percentage of invalid setting records. Wyoming is developing a completely new processing system that will correct this problem in the future. Connecticut does not report ACF-801 data on all or nearly all children served by contracted centers. Alaska began reporting full population data in February 2006; however, they are still resolving the difficulty of capturing information on children in Protective Services and Foster Care. | |||||||
Posted October, 2008.