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 11 Child Care and Development Fund Average Monthly Percentages of Children by Racial Group (FFY 2003) |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Native American/ Alaskan Native |
Asian | Black/African American |
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific |
White | Multi-Racial | Invalid/ Race not Reported |
Total |
| Alabama | 0% | 0% | 72% | 0% | 27% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Alaska | 6% | 2% | 11% | 3% | 47% | 13% | 17% | 100% |
| American Samoa | 0% | 0% | 0% | 99% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 100% |
| Arizona | 5% | 0% | 13% | 1% | 78% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| Arkansas | 0% | 1% | 66% | 0% | 33% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| California | 1% | 6% | 24% | 1% | 36% | 2% | 30% | 100% |
| Colorado | 1% | 1% | 18% | 0% | 77% | 0% | 2% | 100% |
| Connecticut | 0% | 0% | 40% | 0% | 24% | 3% | 33% | 100% |
| Delaware | 0% | 0% | 66% | 0% | 29% | 0% | 5% | 100% |
| District of Columbia | 0% | 0% | 94% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 2% | 100% |
| Florida | 0% | 0% | 50% | 0% | 48% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Georgia | 0% | 0% | 81% | 0% | 17% | 1% | 1% | 100% |
| Guam | 0% | 9% | 0% | 87% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| Hawaii | 0% | 46% | 2% | 35% | 12% | 6% | 0% | 100% |
| Idaho | 2% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 84% | 1% | 12% | 100% |
| Illinois | 0% | 0% | 68% | 2% | 16% | 1% | 13% | 100% |
| Indiana | 0% | 0% | 48% | 0% | 44% | 7% | 0% | 100% |
| Iowa | 1% | 0% | 22% | 0% | 77% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Kansas | 1% | 0% | 29% | 0% | 68% | 0% | 1% | 100% |
| Kentucky | 0% | 0% | 31% | 0% | 63% | 0% | 7% | 100% |
| Louisiana | 0% | 0% | 82% | 0% | 17% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Maine | 2% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 88% | 5% | 3% | 100% |
| Maryland | 0% | 1% | 77% | 0% | 19% | 1% | 2% | 100% |
| Massachusetts | 1% | 2% | 16% | 0% | 28% | 1% | 53% | 100% |
| Michigan | 0% | 0% | 45% | 0% | 30% | 25% | 0% | 100% |
| Minnesota | 3% | 4% | 32% | 1% | 58% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| Mississippi | 0% | 0% | 88% | 0% | 11% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Missouri | 0% | 0% | 54% | 0% | 43% | 0% | 2% | 100% |
| Montana | 10% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 86% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Nebraska | 4% | 1% | 26% | 0% | 69% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Nevada | 2% | 1% | 32% | 1% | 59% | 5% | 0% | 100% |
| New Hampshire | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 22% | 1% | 77% | 100% |
| New Jersey | 0% | 1% | 57% | 9% | 19% | 2% | 12% | 100% |
| New Mexico | 6% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 86% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| New York | 0% | 1% | 29% | 0% | 20% | 2% | 48% | 100% |
| North Carolina | 4% | 0% | 61% | 1% | 34% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| North Dakota | 16% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 79% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Ohio | 0% | 0% | 56% | 0% | 41% | 0% | 3% | 100% |
| Oklahoma | 8% | 1% | 34% | 0% | 57% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Oregon | 3% | 2% | 9% | 0% | 86% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Pennsylvania | 0% | 1% | 22% | 0% | 20% | 1% | 56% | 100% |
| Puerto Rico | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0% |
| Rhode Island | 0% | 1% | 10% | 0% | 28% | 0% | 61% | 100% |
| South Carolina | 0% | 0% | 79% | 0% | 21% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| South Dakota | 21% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 72% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Tennessee | 0% | 0% | 72% | 0% | 27% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Texas | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0% |
| Utah | 0% | 5% | 4% | 0% | 79% | 0% | 12% | 100% |
| Vermont | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 98% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Virgin Islands | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0% |
| Virginia | 7% | 2% | 63% | 0% | 28% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Washington | 2% | 1% | 9% | 0% | 36% | 0% | 51% | 100% |
| West Virginia | 0% | 0% | 13% | 0% | 78% | 7% | 1% | 100% |
| Wisconsin | 2% | 2% | 40% | 0% | 43% | 2% | 12% | 100% |
| Wyoming | 3% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 82% | 0% | 11% | 100% |
| National | 1% | 1% | 43% | 1% | 37% | 2% | 14% | 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 multi-racial category includes any child where more than one race was answered Yes (1). |
| 4. | The Invalid/Not Reported category includes children where one or more race fields had anything other than a No (0) or Yes (1), blank, null, or space. |
| 5. | Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were unable to report ACF-801 case-level data before report preparation. |
| 6. | Some States have not yet completed modifications of their state systems to capture and report the updated Census race and ethnicity requirements. |
| 7. | Alaska’s population reported does not accurately reflect the population served due to sampling difficulties the State is trying to resolve. |
| 8. | Texas data was not considered sufficiently reliable in these measures to report, and was excluded from the calculation of the national average. |
| 9. | In some instances, the Total may appear to be slightly more or less than 100% because of rounding. |
