Child Care Bureau: Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), FFY 2002 CCDF Data Tables (Expanded Set of Tables, June 2006)

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 Income

The entire collection of tables is also available in Excel or PDF format.

Table 16 Child Care and Development Fund Average Monthly Percent of Families Receiving TANF (FFY 2002)
State	TANF (Yes)	TANF (NO)	Invalid/Not Reported	Total
Alabama	7%	93%	0%	100%
Alaska	13%	87%	0%	100%
American Samoa	0%	100%	0%	100%
Arizona	19%	81%	0%	100%
Arkansas	41%	59%	0%	100%
California	16%	84%	0%	100%
Colorado	18%	82%	0%	100%
Connecticut	18%	82%	0%	100%
Delaware	12%	88%	0%	100%
District of Columbia	15%	85%	0%	100%
Florida	14%	84%	2%	100%
Georgia	15%	86%	0%	100%
Guam	25%	75%	0%	100%
Hawaii	26%	74%	0%	100%
Idaho	2%	98%	0%	100%
Illinois	12%	88%	0%	100%
Indiana	22%	78%	0%	100%
Iowa	46%	54%	0%	100%
Kansas	8%	91%	0%	100%
Kentucky	3%	97%	0%	100%
Louisiana	15%	83%	3%	100%
Maine	6%	95%	0%	100%
Maryland	11%	89%	0%	100%
Massachusetts	15%	85%	0%	100%
Michigan	19%	81%	0%	100%
Minnesota	0%	100%	0%	100%
Mississippi	1%	100%	0%	100%
Missouri	25%	75%	0%	100%
Montana	14%	86%	0%	100%
Nebraska	25%	75%	0%	100%
Nevada	29%	71%	0%	100%
New Hampshire	0%	0%	100%	100%
New Jersey	13%	87%	0%	100%
New Mexico	19%	81%	0%	100%
New York	22%	78%	0%	100%
North Carolina	8%	92%	0%	100%
North Dakota	14%	86%	0%	100%
Northern Mariana Islands	4%	96%	0%	100%
Ohio	18%	82%	0%	100%
Oklahoma	17%	83%	0%	100%
Oregon	31%	69%	0%	100%
Pennsylvania	8%	92%	0%	100%
Puerto Rico	-	-	-	-
Rhode Island	16%	84%	0%	100%
South Carolina	23%	77%	0%	100%
South Dakota	7%	93%	0%	100%
Tennessee	55%	45%	0%	100%
Texas	12%	87%	0%	100%
Utah	7%	93%	0%	100%
Vermont	14%	86%	0%	100%
Virgin Islands	-	-	-	-
Virginia	28%	72%	0%	100%
Washington	22%	78%	0%	100%
West Virginia	11%	89%	0%	100%
Wisconsin	9%	91%	0%	100%
Wyoming	-	-	-	-
National	17%	82%	1%	100%

Notes applicable to this table:

1. The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FFY 2002

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 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.

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 percentage shown as "Yes" is the number reported as "Yes" divided by the families that answered "Yes" or "No", or an invalid/not reported response excluding families that were in protective services. States with few or no valid TANF data include Minnesota, New Hampshire and Wyoming. Wyoming's software had reversed the responses for TANF data. Based on a reversed result, it is estimated that 11% of the families in Wyoming that receive subsidized child care also received TANF. Minnesota estimates that 35% of families receiving subsidized child care also receive TANF. Minnesota and Wyoming data were included in the National Percentage calculation.