FFY 2003 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 2003) |
|||
| 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 | 7% | 8% | 8% |
| Alaska | 7% | 4% | 4% |
| American Samoa | - | - | - |
| Arizona | 11% | 5% | 4% |
| Arkansas | 77% | 8% | 1% |
| California | 72% | 3% | 1% |
| Colorado | 6% | 9% | 8% |
| Connecticut | 4% | 5% | 5% |
| Delaware | 19% | 8% | 6% |
| District of Columbia | 18% | 5% | 4% |
| Florida | 1% | 6% | 6% |
| Georgia | 17% | 4% | 3% |
| Guam | - | - | - |
| Hawaii | 53% | 3% | 1% |
| Idaho | 0% | 8% | 8% |
| Illinois | 2% | 6% | 6% |
| Indiana | 80% | 3% | 1% |
| Iowa | 60% | 6% | 2% |
| Kansas | 27% | 6% | 4% |
| Kentucky | 28% | 8% | 5% |
| Louisiana | 32% | 10% | 7% |
| Maine | 3% | 7% | 7% |
| Maryland | 16% | 5% | 5% |
| Massachusetts | 31% | 9% | 6% |
| Michigan | 23% | 4% | 3% |
| Minnesota | 21% | 4% | 3% |
| Mississippi | 0% | 3% | 3% |
| Missouri | 29% | 7% | 4% |
| Montana | 0% | 4% | 4% |
| Nebraska | 47% | 10% | 3% |
| Nevada | 51% | 10% | 4% |
| New Hampshire | 23% | 0% | 0% |
| New Jersey | 16% | 7% | 6% |
| New Mexico | 22% | 5% | 4% |
| New York | 36% | 5% | 3% |
| North Carolina | 7% | 9% | 8% |
| North Dakota | 6% | 12% | 11% |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 0% | 9% | 9% |
| Ohio | 3% | 5% | 5% |
| Oklahoma | 43% | 8% | 4% |
| Oregon | 8% | 10% | 9% |
| Pennsylvania | 8% | 6% | 6% |
| Puerto Rico | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | 29% | 5% | 3% |
| South Carolina | 14% | 3% | 2% |
| South Dakota | 50% | 10% | 4% |
| Tennessee | 63% | 1% | 1% |
| Texas | 7% | 10% | 9% |
| Utah | 8% | 5% | 5% |
| Vermont | 34% | 6% | 4% |
| Virgin Islands | - | - | - |
| Virginia | 26% | 10% | 7% |
| Washington | 14% | 6% | 5% |
| West Virginia | 12% | 5% | 4% |
| Wisconsin | 3% | 6% | 6% |
| Wyoming | 2% | 4% | 4% |
| National Mean (Weighted) | 25% | 6% | 5% |
Notes applicable to this report:
1. |
The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FFY 2003. |
2. |
The national weighted values were determined by multiplying each State’s average co-payment/income percentage by the adjusted number of children in each State, summing across the States and then dividing by the adjusted number of children served for the Nation. "Adjusted" means adjusted to represent CCDF funding only. |
3. |
The data from Guam and American Samoa were not considered sufficiently reliable in these measures to report. |
4. |
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were unable to report ACF-801 case-level data before report preparation. |
5. |
The average co-payment over income percentage calculations excludes families with zero income because dividing by zero is undefined. |
6. |
The first and second columns are the percentage of families with $0 co-payment divided by the count of families with an income greater than zero. Families with zero income or headed by a child or in protective services were not included in the data for this table. |
