Revised FFY 1999 CCDF Data Tables and Charts
Index: Cover page | List of Tables and Charts | 1-Children Served | 2-Type of Payment | 3-Care by Type | 4-Regulated vs. Non-Regulated | 5-Relative Care | 6-Setting Detail | 7-Provider Summary | 8-Consumer Education | Reason for Care Chart | Ages Chart
The entire collection of tables and charts is available in Excel document.
Child Care and Development Fund |
| State | Child's Home | Family Home | Group Home | Center |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 0% | 18% | 6% | 76% |
| Alaska | 4% | 52% | 2% | 42% |
| American Samoa | 0% | 1% | 0% | 99% |
| Arizona | 2% | 20% | 4% | 74% |
| Arkansas | 1% | 18% | 0% | 80% |
| California | 3% | 21% | 5% | 71% |
| Colorado | 10% | 34% | 0% | 56% |
| Connecticut | 54% | 6% | 0% | 39% |
| Delaware | 4% | 39% | 2% | 55% |
| District of Columbia | 0% | 5% | 0% | 94% |
| Florida | 2% | 13% | 0% | 85% |
| Georgia | 2% | 19% | 2% | 78% |
| Guam | 18% | 42% | 1% | 39% |
| Hawaii | 10% | 70% | 0% | 20% |
| Idaho | 2% | 39% | 15% | 45% |
| Illinois | 32% | 37% | 1% | 30% |
| Indiana | 8% | 58% | 0% | 35% |
| Iowa | 1% | 51% | 12% | 36% |
| Kansas | 7% | 15% | 42% | 36% |
| Kentucky | 2% | 32% | 1% | 64% |
| Louisiana | 32% | 17% | 0% | 51% |
| Maine | 1% | 22% | 0% | 23% |
| Maryland | 23% | 42% | 0% | 35% |
| Massachusetts | 16% | 10% | 18% | 57% |
| Michigan | 31% | 47% | 8% | 14% |
| Minnesota | 10% | 60% | 0% | 30% |
| Mississippi | 8% | 10% | 2% | 80% |
| Missouri | 0% | 61% | 1% | 38% |
| Montana | 0% | 35% | 33% | 32% |
| Nebraska | 0% | 35% | 7% | 57% |
| Nevada | 2% | 12% | 0% | 86% |
| New Hampshire | - | - | - | - |
| New Jersey | 1% | 25% | 0% | 74% |
| New Mexico | 0% | 55% | 4% | 40% |
| New York | 15% | 45% | 6% | 33% |
| North Carolina | 1% | 16% | 1% | 82% |
| North Dakota | 0% | 43% | 27% | 29% |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 0% | 71% | 0% | 29% |
| Ohio | 0% | 35% | 1% | 64% |
| Oklahoma | 0% | 18% | 0% | 81% |
| Oregon | 13% | 64% | 1% | 22% |
| Pennsylvania | 6% | 37% | 3% | 54% |
| Puerto Rico | 3% | 37% | 9% | 50% |
| Rhode Island | 9% | 27% | 0% | 64% |
| South Carolina | 3% | 17% | 3% | 77% |
| South Dakota | 5% | 58% | 8% | 30% |
| Tennessee | 1% | 21% | 5% | 73% |
| Texas | 7% | 12% | 3% | 78% |
| Utah | 3% | 56% | 4% | 37% |
| Vermont | 4% | 55% | 0% | 41% |
| Virgin Islands | 4% | 20% | 14% | 62% |
| Virginia | 1% | 44% | 0% | 55% |
| Washington | 24% | 36% | 0% | 40% |
| West Virginia | 0% | 57% | 1% | 42% |
| Wisconsin | 0% | 36% | 0% | 64% |
| Wyoming | 14% | 41% | 15% | 31% |
| National | 9% | 30% | 3% | 57% |
| Notes: |
| 1. The source for this table is ACF-800 data for FFY 1999. |
| 2. New Hampshire did not submit data for setting type. |
| 3. Maine submitted data, but the total number of children by setting type did not add up to the total number of children. |
| 4. A "0%" indication often means the value is less than 0.5% rather than actually zero. |
| 5. In a few instances, the sum of the categories may not appear to add up to exactly 100% because of rounding. |
Index: Cover page | List of Tables and Charts | 1-Children Served | 2-Type of Payment | 3-Care by Type | 4-Regulated vs. Non-Regulated | 5-Relative Care | 6-Setting Detail | 7-Provider Summary | 8-Consumer Education | Reason for Care Chart | Ages Chart