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 16 Child Care and Development Fund Preliminary Estimates Average Monthly Percent of Families Receiving TANF (FFY 2007) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | TANF (% Yes) | TANF (% No) | Invalid, Not Reported |
Total |
| Alabama | 13% | 87% | 0% | 100% |
| Alaska | 14% | 86% | 0% | 100% |
| American Samoa | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Arizona | 19% | 81% | 0% | 100% |
| Arkansas | 5% | 95% | 0% | 100% |
| California | 11% | 89% | 0% | 100% |
| Colorado | 7% | 93% | 0% | 100% |
| Connecticut | 13% | 87% | 0% | 100% |
| Delaware | 9% | 91% | 0% | 100% |
| District of Columbia | 9% | 91% | 0% | 100% |
| Florida | 5% | 93% | 2% | 100% |
| Georgia | 6% | 94% | 0% | 100% |
| Guam | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Hawaii | 13% | 87% | 0% | 100% |
| Idaho | 1% | 99% | 0% | 100% |
| Illinois | 5% | 95% | 0% | 100% |
| Indiana | 21% | 79% | 0% | 100% |
| Iowa | 27% | 73% | 0% | 100% |
| Kansas | 7% | 93% | 0% | 100% |
| Kentucky | 1% | 99% | 0% | 100% |
| Louisiana | 10% | 85% | 5% | 100% |
| Maine | 3% | 97% | 0% | 100% |
| Maryland | 13% | 87% | 0% | 100% |
| Massachusetts | 22% | 78% | 0% | 100% |
| Michigan | 57% | 43% | 0% | 100% |
| Minnesota | 36% | 64% | 0% | 100% |
| Mississippi | 11% | 89% | 0% | 100% |
| Missouri | 17% | 83% | 0% | 100% |
| Montana | 11% | 89% | 0% | 100% |
| Nebraska | 24% | 76% | 0% | 100% |
| Nevada | 17% | 83% | 0% | 100% |
| New Hampshire | 27% | 65% | 8% | 100% |
| New Jersey | 13% | 87% | 0% | 100% |
| New Mexico | 15% | 85% | 0% | 100% |
| New York | 46% | 54% | 0% | 100% |
| North Carolina | 4% | 96% | 0% | 100% |
| North Dakota | 20% | 80% | 0% | 100% |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Ohio | 15% | 85% | 0% | 100% |
| Oklahoma | 10% | 90% | 0% | 100% |
| Oregon | 32% | 68% | 0% | 100% |
| Pennsylvania | 12% | 88% | 0% | 100% |
| Puerto Rico | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Rhode Island | 8% | 92% | 0% | 100% |
| South Carolina | 26% | 74% | 0% | 100% |
| South Dakota | 6% | 94% | 0% | 100% |
| Tennessee | 60% | 40% | 0% | 100% |
| Texas | 1% | 99% | 0% | 100% |
| Utah | 12% | 88% | 0% | 100% |
| Vermont | 19% | 81% | 0% | 100% |
| Virgin Islands | 5% | 95% | 0% | 100% |
| Virginia | 31% | 69% | 0% | 100% |
| Washington | 20% | 80% | 0% | 100% |
| West Virginia | 6% | 94% | 0% | 100% |
| Wisconsin | 4% | 96% | 0% | 100% |
| Wyoming | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| National Average | 17% | 83% | 0% | 100% |
Notes applicable to this table:
| 1. | The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FFY 2007. |
| 2. | These percentages were based on the "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. |
| 3. | All States provide an actual unadjusted count of families served each month. For States reporting full population data, the number of child records reported each month were directly counted. However, for States that only submit samples, the ratio of children-to-families was determined each month from the samples and then multiplied by the reported number of families to obtain an estimate of the unadjusted number of children served each month. The unadjusted average number of families and children were obtained from the monthly numbers in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) as reported on the ACF-801 summary (header) record. 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. |
| 4. | 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. |
| 5. | At the time of publication, American Samoa and Guam had not yet reported any ACF-801 data for FFY 2007. |
| 6. | 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. |
| 7. | The percentage shown as "Yes" is the number reported as "Yes" divided by the families that answered "Yes" or "No" excluding families that were in protective services. The Invalid/Not Reported column includes families that did not indicate whether TANF was a source of income and the family was reported as being in protective services. |
Posted October, 2008.