Child Care and Development Fund, Report to Congress for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005
Download the Report to Congress in PDF format. 
(File size is 1.21 Megabytes.)
| Table 14b––Child Care and Development Fund Average Monthly Percentages of Families With TANF as One of Their Sources of Income (FY 2005) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Yes | No | Invalid, Not Reported |
Total |
| Alabama | 13% | 87% | 0% | 100% |
| Alaska | 11% | 89% | 0% | 100% |
| American Samoa | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | 22% | 78% | 0% | 100% |
| Arkansas | 37% | 63% | 0% | 100% |
| California | 11% | 88% | 0% | 100% |
| Colorado | 18% | 82% | 0% | 100% |
| Connecticut | 71% | 29% | 0% | 100% |
| Delaware | 13% | 87% | 0% | 100% |
| District of Columbia | 20% | 80% | 0% | 100% |
| Florida | 10% | 89% | 1% | 100% |
| Georgia | 15% | 85% | 0% | 100% |
| Guam | - | - | - | - |
| Hawaii | 17% | 83% | 0% | 100% |
| Idaho | 2% | 98% | 0% | 100% |
| Illinois | 7% | 93% | 0% | 100% |
| Indiana | 30% | 70% | 0% | 100% |
| Iowa | 38% | 62% | 0% | 100% |
| Kansas | 10% | 90% | 0% | 100% |
| Kentucky | 1% | 99% | 0% | 100% |
| Louisiana | 12% | 84% | 4% | 100% |
| Maine | 4% | 96% | 0% | 100% |
| Maryland | 18% | 82% | 0% | 100% |
| Massachusetts | 21% | 79% | 0% | 100% |
| Michigan | 45% | 55% | 0% | 100% |
| Minnesota | 36% | 64% | 0% | 100% |
| Mississippi | 22% | 78% | 0% | 100% |
| Missouri | 25% | 75% | 0% | 100% |
| Montana | 13% | 87% | 0% | 100% |
| Nebraska | 28% | 72% | 0% | 100% |
| Nevada | 28% | 72% | 0% | 100% |
| New Hampshire | 27% | 66% | 7% | 100% |
| New Jersey | 15% | 85% | 0% | 100% |
| New Mexico | 17% | 83% | 0% | 100% |
| New York | 39% | 61% | 0% | 100% |
| North Carolina | 7% | 93% | 0% | 100% |
| North Dakota | 20% | 80% | 0% | 100% |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Ohio | 18% | 82% | 0% | 100% |
| Oklahoma | 15% | 85% | 0% | 100% |
| Oregon | 33% | 67% | 0% | 100% |
| Pennsylvania | 9% | 47% | 43% | 100% |
| Puerto Rico | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Rhode Island | 9% | 91% | 0% | 100% |
| South Carolina | 46% | 54% | 0% | 100% |
| South Dakota | 7% | 93% | 0% | 100% |
| Tennessee | 62% | 38% | 0% | 100% |
| Texas | 2% | 98% | 0% | 100% |
| Utah | 11% | 89% | 0% | 100% |
| Vermont | 17% | 83% | 0% | 100% |
| Virgin Islands | 2% | 98% | 0% | 100% |
| Virginia | 26% | 74% | 0% | 100% |
| Washington | 20% | 80% | 0% | 100% |
| West Virginia | 9% | 91% | 0% | 100% |
| Wisconsin | 7% | 93% | 0% | 100% |
| Wyoming | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| National Average | 19% | 79% | 2% | 100% |
| Notes applicable to all tables: | |
| 1. | The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FY 2005. |
| 2. | All counts are "adjusted" numbers of families and children. 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). (The "unadjusted" numbers are not necessarily the total number of families or children served in a State, because some States only report the number served by CCDF in the ACF-801 and thus report a 100-percent pooling factor but still serve additional children and families with separate State funds.) |
| 4. | For tables that report percentages, national percentages are based on the "adjusted" national counts. 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. A table with a "0-percent" indication often means the value is less than 0.5 percent rather than actually zero. In a few instances, the sum of the categories may not appear to add up to exactly 100 percent because of rounding. |
| 5. | At the time of publication, American Samoa and Guam had not yet reported ACF-801 data for FFY 2005. One other Territory submitted less than 12 months of ACF-801 data; the Northern Mariana Islands submitted 9 months. |
| 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. |
| Notes applicable to this table: | |
| 1. | The percentage shown as "Yes" is the number reported as "Yes" divided by the families that answered "Yes" or "No" or an invalid response, 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 or not and the family was not reported as being in protective services. |
Table 15b. Mean Family Co-Payment as a Percentage of Family Income >>