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 17 Child Care and Development Fund Average Monthly Mean Family Co-payment as a Percent of Family Income (FFY 2002) |
|||
| State/ Territories |
Percent of Families with $0 CoPay (among those with Income > $0) | Mean CoPay/Income* in Percent (Excluding those with $0 CoPay) | Mean CoPay/Income* in Percent (Including those with $0 CoPay) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 6% | 12% | 11% |
| Alaska | 6% | 9% | 9% |
| American Samoa | 98% | - | - |
| Arizona | 10% | 5% | 4% |
| Arkansas | 77% | 9% | 1% |
| California | 72% | 3% | 1% |
| Colorado | 7% | 9% | 8% |
| Connecticut | 15% | 5% | 4% |
| Delaware | 15% | 9% | 7% |
| District of Columbia | 16% | 5% | 4% |
| Florida | 2% | 6% | 5% |
| Georgia | 56% | 4% | 1% |
| Guam | 2% | 13% | 12% |
| Hawaii | 55% | 4% | 1% |
| Idaho | 0% | 6% | 6% |
| Illinois | 2% | 6% | 6% |
| Indiana | 66% | 5% | 2% |
| Iowa | 59% | 6% | 2% |
| Kansas | 17% | 7% | 5% |
| Kentucky | 28% | 7% | 5% |
| Louisiana | 40% | 6% | 3% |
| Maine | 2% | 7% | 7% |
| Maryland | 17% | 5% | 4% |
| Massachusetts | 30% | 8% | 5% |
| Michigan | 22% | 5% | 4% |
| Minnesota | 20% | 4% | 3% |
| Mississippi | 0% | 2% | 2% |
| Missouri | 21% | 5% | 4% |
| Montana | 2% | 4% | 4% |
| Nebraska | 41% | 10% | 4% |
| Nevada | 47% | 11% | 5% |
| New Hampshire | 55% | 0% | 0% |
| New Jersey | 18% | 8% | 6% |
| New Mexico | 21% | 5% | 4% |
| New York | 28% | 5% | 4% |
| North Carolina | 7% | 8% | 8% |
| North Dakota | 5% | 11% | 11% |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 1% | 9% | 9% |
| Ohio | 3% | 5% | 5% |
| Oklahoma | 36% | 9% | 4% |
| Oregon | 9% | 8% | 7% |
| Pennsylvania | 4% | 7% | 6% |
| Puerto Rico | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | 27% | 5% | 3% |
| South Carolina | 16% | 3% | 2% |
| South Dakota | 52% | 9% | 3% |
| Tennessee | 54% | 1% | 1% |
| Texas | 7% | 9% | 8% |
| Utah | 12% | 5% | 4% |
| Vermont | 32% | 6% | 4% |
| Virgin Islands | - | - | - |
| Virginia | 26% | 10% | 7% |
| Washington | 39% | 5% | 2% |
| West Virginia | 12% | 4% | 4% |
| Wisconsin | 3% | 6% | 6% |
| Wyoming | 1% | 5% | 5% |
| National Mean (Weighted) | 26% | 6% | 4% |
Notes applicable to this table:
| 1. The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FY 2002. |
| 2. Percentages were 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). |
| 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. The data from American Samoa were not considered sufficiently reliable in these measures to report. |
| 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 "Mean CoPay/Income" columns exclude families with zero income because dividing by zero is undefined. Families headed by a child or in protective services were also excluded from this table. |
| 8. The National weighted values were determined by multiplying each State's average co-payment/income percentage by the adjusted number of families in each State, summing across the States and then dividing by the adjusted number of families served for the Nation. |
