FFY 2006 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 5 Child Care and Development Fund Preliminary Estimates Of Children in Settings Legally Operating Without Regulation, Average Monthly Percent Served by Relatives vs. Non-Relatives (FFY 2006) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Relative | Non-Relative | Total % | Total Count |
| Alabama | 14% | 86% | 100% | 5491 |
| Alaska | 78% | 22% | 100% | 1406 |
| American Samoa | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | 100% | 0% | 100% | 3,339 |
| Arkansas | 10% | 90% | 100% | 40 |
| California | 65% | 35% | 100% | 57,022 |
| Colorado | 71% | 29% | 100% | 3,014 |
| Connecticut | 73% | 27% | 100% | 4,732 |
| Delaware | 79% | 21% | 100% | 822 |
| District of Columbia | 93% | 7% | 100% | 29 |
| Florida | 3% | 97% | 100% | 10,227 |
| Georgia | 80% | 20% | 100% | 2,980 |
| Guam | 39% | 61% | 100% | 94 |
| Hawaii | 84% | 16% | 100% | 5327 |
| Idaho | 34% | 66% | 100% | 3711 |
| Illinois | 34% | 66% | 100% | 41,660 |
| Indiana | 7% | 93% | 100% | 11,087 |
| Iowa | 16% | 84% | 100% | 3,787 |
| Kansas | 84% | 16% | 100% | 3,605 |
| Kentucky | 57% | 43% | 100% | 4,693 |
| Louisiana | 51% | 49% | 100% | 10,558 |
| Maine | 49% | 51% | 100% | 730 |
| Maryland | 86% | 14% | 100% | 5,087 |
| Massachusetts | 68% | 32% | 100% | 1,392 |
| Michigan | 100% | 0% | 100% | 58,761 |
| Minnesota | 41% | 59% | 100% | 9,914 |
| Mississippi | 53% | 47% | 100% | 9,952 |
| Missouri | 32% | 68% | 100% | 12,241 |
| Montana | 55% | 45% | 100% | 630 |
| Nebraska | 3% | 97% | 100% | 2,331 |
| Nevada | 7% | 93% | 100% | 1,601 |
| New Hampshire | 28% | 72% | 100% | 2,298 |
| New Jersey | 35% | 65% | 100% | 3,267 |
| New Mexico | 73% | 27% | 100% | 7,560 |
| New York | 43% | 57% | 100% | 59,609 |
| North Carolina | 75% | 25% | 100% | 1,535 |
| North Dakota | 38% | 62% | 100% | 1395 |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 100% | 0% | 100% | 2 |
| Ohio | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| Oklahoma | - | - | - | - |
| Oregon | 29% | 71% | 100% | 11,683 |
| Pennsylvania | 51% | 49% | 100% | 32,835 |
| Puerto Rico | 83% | 17% | 100% | 5,512 |
| Rhode Island | 46% | 55% | 100% | 200 |
| South Carolina | 0% | 100% | 100% | 3,353 |
| South Dakota | 57% | 43% | 100% | 630 |
| Tennessee | 40% | 60% | 100% | 4,374 |
| Texas | 100% | 0% | 100% | 20,275 |
| Utah | 95% | 5% | 100% | 5,513 |
| Vermont | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| Virgin Islands | 52% | 48% | 100% | 21 |
| Virginia | 49% | 51% | 100% | 5,167 |
| Washington | 97% | 3% | 100% | 8,719 |
| West Virginia | 30% | 70% | 100% | 250 |
| Wisconsin | 0% | 100% | 100% | 1 |
| Wyoming | 60% | 40% | 100% | 1,226 |
| National Average | 58% | 42% | 100% | 451,688 |
Notes applicable to this table:
| 1. | The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FFY 2006. 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. Percentages are based on these counts. 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. | 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. In this table, centers operating without regulation (data element 26 = 11) were considered Non-Relative. | |||||
| 4. | In some States there were no children served in unregulated settings and thus the percent is "NA" since division by zero is undefined. Ohio and Vermont have no Providers Legally Operating Without Regulation. | |||||
| 5. | At the time of publication American Samoa had not yet reported ACF-801 data for FFY 2006 and Guam only submitted four (4) months of data. Oklahoma had not submitted the ACF-800 form or otherwise reported the pooling factor and had not reported all the ACF-801 data, so OK was not included in this data. | |||||
| 6. | For children served by multiple providers, the child's count is proportioned based on the ratio of the hours with each provider divided by the total hours of service. | |||||
| 7. | The current WY 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. WY 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's reported population does not accurately reflect the population served in Oct 2005 through January 2006 served by CCDF due to sampling difficulties. However, Alaska began reporting full population data in Feb 2006. Alaska does not report any children in foster care or families headed by a child. | |||||
