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 10 Child Care and Development Fund Reasons for Receiving Care, Average Monthly Percentage of Families (FFY 2003) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Employment | Training/ Education |
Both Emp &Training/ Education |
Protective Services |
Other | Invalid/Not Reported | Total |
| Alabama | 80% | 8% | 6% | 5% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Alaska | 86% | 4% | 7% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| American Samoa | 75% | 2% | 22% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 100% |
| Arizona | 75% | 1% | 7% | 15% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Arkansas | 81% | 7% | 0% | 5% | 7% | 0% | 100% |
| California | 82% | 7% | 5% | 2% | 4% | 0% | 100% |
| Colorado | 77% | 15% | 5% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| Connecticut | 92% | 7% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Delaware | 86% | 5% | 1% | 3% | 5% | 0% | 100% |
| District of Columbia | 63% | 26% | 2% | 1% | 7% | 0% | 100% |
| Florida | 73% | 4% | 8% | 13% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Georgia | 80% | 15% | 3% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 100% |
| Guam | 82% | 10% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 100% |
| Hawaii | 80% | 9% | 10% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Idaho | 72% | 12% | 16% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Illinois | 88% | 5% | 2% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 100% |
| Indiana | 71% | 12% | 8% | 0% | 9% | 0% | 100% |
| Iowa | 77% | 14% | 1% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Kansas | 90% | 8% | 2% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Kentucky | 73% | 14% | 3% | 10% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Louisiana | 80% | 8% | 9% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Maine | 85% | 5% | 5% | 2% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Maryland | 82% | 11% | 7% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Massachusetts | 72% | 10% | 0% | 13% | 4% | 2% | 100% |
| Michigan | 89% | 8% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Minnesota | 78% | 8% | 9% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 100% |
| Mississippi | 83% | 16% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Missouri | 66% | 19% | 0% | 10% | 2% | 2% | 100% |
| Montana | 62% | 23% | 9% | 6% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Nebraska | 71% | 15% | 2% | 10% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Nevada | 81% | 9% | 3% | 1% | 6% | 0% | 100% |
| New Hampshire | 79% | 11% | 0% | 8% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| New Jersey | 82% | 3% | 2% | 5% | 8% | 0% | 100% |
| New Mexico | 71% | 15% | 13% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| New York | 73% | 15% | 3% | 1% | 8% | 0% | 100% |
| North Carolina | 88% | 12% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| North Dakota | 68% | 22% | 10% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 58% | 25% | 17% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Ohio | 71% | 16% | 3% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 100% |
| Oklahoma | 70% | 7% | 21% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Oregon | 75% | 3% | 21% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Pennsylvania | 89% | 5% | 1% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 100% |
| Puerto Rico | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | 88% | 9% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| South Carolina | 82% | 18% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| South Dakota | 60% | 10% | 16% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Tennessee | 45% | 43% | 11% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Texas | 69% | 27% | 2% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| Utah | 85% | 1% | 4% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 100% |
| Vermont | 78% | 12% | 0% | 6% | 4% | 0% | 100% |
| Virgin Islands | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Virginia | 83% | 5% | 9% | 1% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| Washington | 83% | 8% | 1% | 8% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| West Virginia | 78% | 13% | 8% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Wisconsin | 89% | 1% | 8% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Wyoming | 88% | 11% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| National | 78% | 12% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
Notes applicable to this table:
1. |
The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FFY 2003. |
2. |
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. |
3. |
The Invalid/Not Reported only includes family records with an invalid or missing number for ACF-801 element 6. |
4. |
Several States only capture the primary reason for receiving services and therefore do not report any families in the Both Employment and Training/Education category. |
5. |
Inconsistencies in income reporting appear in several States between ACF-801 element 6 (reason for receiving a subsidy, element 9 (total income for determining eligibility), and elements 10 through 15 (the sources of income). O.K. So how are we handling these inconsistencies, i.e., are they counted as Invalid? Records containing such inconsistencies are included in the measures above. |
6. |
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were unable to report ACF-801 case-level data before report preparation. |
7. |
Alaska’s population reported does not accurately reflect the population served due to sampling difficulties the State is trying to resolve. |
8. |
In some instances, the Total may appear to be slightly more or less than 100% because of rounding. |
