FFY 2002 CCDF Data Tables (Expanded Set of Tables, June 2006)
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 11 |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Native American/ Alaskan Native |
Asian | Black/African American |
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific |
White | Multi-Racial | Invalid/ Race not Reported |
Total |
| Alabama | 0% | 0% | 71% | 0% | 28% | 0% | 1% | 100% |
| Alaska | 8% | 3% | 9% | 2% | 53% | 11% | 15% | 100% |
| American Samoa | 0% | 0% | 0% | 99% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Arizona | 5% | 0% | 13% | 1% | 78% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| Arkansas | 0% | 1% | 68% | 0% | 31% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| California | 1% | 4% | 26% | 1% | 36% | 2% | 31% | 100% |
| Colorado | 1% | 1% | 19% | 0% | 77% | 0% | 1% | 100% |
| Connecticut | 0% | 0% | 40% | 0% | 21% | 1% | 37% | 100% |
| Delaware | 0% | 0% | 66% | 0% | 26% | 0% | 8% | 100% |
| District of Columbia | 0% | 0% | 95% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 2% | 100% |
| Florida | 0% | 0% | 52% | 0% | 46% | 0% | 2% | 100% |
| Georgia | 0% | 0% | 80% | 0% | 18% | 1% | 1% | 100% |
| Guam | 0% | 11% | 0% | 84% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 100% |
| Hawaii | 0% | 36% | 3% | 44% | 12% | 2% | 3% | 100% |
| Idaho | 2% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 83% | 1% | 13% | 100% |
| Illinois | 0% | 0% | 68% | 2% | 16% | 0% | 13% | 100% |
| Indiana | 1% | 0% | 48% | 0% | 46% | 5% | 0% | 100% |
| Iowa | 1% | 1% | 21% | 0% | 78% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Kansas | 1% | 0% | 30% | 0% | 66% | 0% | 2% | 100% |
| Kentucky | 0% | 0% | 30% | 0% | 63% | 0% | 6% | 100% |
| Louisiana | 0% | 0% | 84% | 0% | 15% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Maine | 2% | 1% | 3% | 0% | 87% | 4% | 5% | 100% |
| Maryland | 0% | 1% | 77% | 0% | 19% | 1% | 2% | 100% |
| Massachusetts | 0% | 1% | 12% | 0% | 22% | 0% | 65% | 100% |
| Michigan | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Minnesota | 4% | 3% | 29% | 1% | 61% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Mississippi | 0% | 0% | 87% | 0% | 11% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Missouri | 0% | 0% | 54% | 0% | 43% | 0% | 3% | 100% |
| Montana | 10% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 84% | 2% | 3% | 100% |
| Nebraska | 3% | 1% | 27% | 0% | 69% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Nevada | 2% | 1% | 29% | 1% | 62% | 3% | 1% | 100% |
| New Hampshire | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 18% | 1% | 80% | 100% |
| New Jersey | 0% | 1% | 52% | 1% | 15% | 0% | 31% | 100% |
| New Mexico | 6% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 86% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| New York | 0% | 1% | 24% | 0% | 19% | 1% | 54% | 100% |
| North Carolina | 3% | 0% | 59% | 1% | 36% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| North Dakota | 15% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 79% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 0% | 2% | 0% | 98% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Ohio | 0% | 0% | 55% | 0% | 41% | 0% | 3% | 100% |
| Oklahoma | 9% | 0% | 35% | 0% | 56% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Oregon | 2% | 2% | 10% | 0% | 85% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Pennsylvania | 0% | 0% | 22% | 0% | 23% | 1% | 54% | 100% |
| Puerto Rico | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | 0% | 0% | 11% | 0% | 31% | 1% | 58% | 100% |
| South Carolina | 0% | 0% | 80% | 0% | 20% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| South Dakota | 24% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 70% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Tennessee | 0% | 0% | 72% | 0% | 28% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Texas | 0% | 0% | 38% | 0% | 17% | 0% | 44% | 100% |
| Utah | 0% | 6% | 4% | 0% | 77% | 0% | 13% | 100% |
| Vermont | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 98% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Virgin Islands | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Virginia | 0% | 1% | 67% | 0% | 31% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Washington | 2% | 1% | 8% | 0% | 37% | 0% | 52% | 100% |
| West Virginia | 0% | 0% | 14% | 0% | 79% | 6% | 1% | 100% |
| Wisconsin | 2% | 0% | 35% | 0% | 36% | 1% | 26% | 100% |
| Wyoming | 3% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 81% | 0% | 12% | 100% |
| National | 1% | 1% | 42% | 1% | 36% | 1% | 18% | 100% |
Notes applicable to this table:
| 1. The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FFY 2002. |
| 2. All counts are based on "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 the pooling factor as reported on the ACF-800. A few States have indicated that the pooling factor reported on the ACF-800 is not applicable to the ACF-801. This report takes all these factors 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). 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, the following States/Territories have not yet reported ACF-801 for FFY 2002: Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. |
| 6. Connecticut does not report ACF-801 data on all or nearly all children served by contracted centers. Wisconsin has been reporting some children that are authorized for care but do not receive care. Nebraska has been reporting child records for some children that do not receive a subsidy if other children in the same family are receiving a subsidy. Alaska's reported population does not accurately reflect the population served by CCDF due to sampling difficulties the State is trying to resolve. Furthermore Alaska does not report any children in foster care or families headed by a child. |
| 7. The multi-racial category includes any child where more than one race was answered Yes (1). Several States do not capture and report more than one race per child and thus do not provide multi-racial data. |
| 8. The Invalid/Not Reported category includes children where one or more race fields had anything other than a No (0) or Yes (1), blank, null, or space. |
| 9. Several States including Washington are still reporting ethnicity (Latino/Hispanic) as a race rather than as an ethnicity in accordance with the Pre-FFY 2000 Technical Bulletin 3 standard. In many of these instances if a child is designated as Latino, no race is designated. In many states including Texas, Illinois, Louisiana, and Wisconsin self-reporting of race is optional and no race will be reported other than self reporting. All Michigan race data have a known system generated error that makes 95% of the children appear to be multi-racial. Therefore, no MI race data were reported for FFY 2002. The MI data were not included in the calculation of the national averages shown. |
