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 12 Child Care and Development Fund Average Monthly Percentages of Children by Latino Ethnicity (FFY 2003) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Latino | Not Latino | Invalid/Not Reported | Total |
| Alabama | 1% | 99% | 0% | 100% |
| Alaska | 8% | 92% | 0% | 100% |
| American Samoa | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Arizona | 44% | 56% | 0% | 100% |
| Arkansas | 1% | 99% | 0% | 100% |
| California | 47% | 50% | 3% | 100% |
| Colorado | 35% | 65% | 0% | 100% |
| Connecticut | 34% | 66% | 0% | 100% |
| Delaware | 7% | 93% | 0% | 100% |
| District of Columbia | 8% | 92% | 0% | 100% |
| Florida | 21% | 79% | 0% | 100% |
| Georgia | 2% | 99% | 0% | 100% |
| Guam | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Hawaii | 2% | 98% | 0% | 100% |
| Idaho | 14% | 86% | 0% | 100% |
| Illinois | 9% | 86% | 4% | 100% |
| Indiana | 5% | 95% | 0% | 100% |
| Iowa | 6% | 94% | 0% | 100% |
| Kansas | 8% | 92% | 0% | 100% |
| Kentucky | 1% | 94% | 5% | 100% |
| Louisiana | 2% | 99% | 0% | 100% |
| Maine | 3% | 97% | 0% | 100% |
| Maryland | 3% | 97% | 0% | 100% |
| Massachusetts | 31% | 69% | 0% | 100% |
| Michigan | 4% | 96% | 0% | 100% |
| Minnesota | 4% | 96% | 0% | 100% |
| Mississippi | 1% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Missouri | 2% | 96% | 2% | 100% |
| Montana | 5% | 95% | 0% | 100% |
| Nebraska | 9% | 92% | 0% | 100% |
| Nevada | 22% | 78% | 0% | 100% |
| New Hampshire | 2% | 0% | 99% | 100% |
| New Jersey | 26% | 74% | 0% | 100% |
| New Mexico | 73% | 27% | 0% | 100% |
| New York | 13% | 88% | 0% | 100% |
| North Carolina | 4% | 96% | 0% | 100% |
| North Dakota | 3% | 97% | 0% | 100% |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Ohio | 3% | 97% | 0% | 100% |
| Oklahoma | 5% | 95% | 0% | 100% |
| Oregon | 17% | 83% | 0% | 100% |
| Pennsylvania | 5% | 96% | 0% | 100% |
| Puerto Rico | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | 21% | 79% | 0% | 100% |
| South Carolina | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| South Dakota | 3% | 97% | 0% | 100% |
| Tennessee | 1% | 99% | 0% | 100% |
| Texas | 36% | 61% | 2% | 100% |
| Utah | 14% | 86% | 0% | 100% |
| Vermont | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Virgin Islands | - | - | - | - |
| Virginia | 11% | 89% | 0% | 100% |
| Washington | 17% | 83% | 0% | 100% |
| West Virginia | 1% | 99% | 0% | 100% |
| Wisconsin | 6% | 94% | 0% | 100% |
| Wyoming | 11% | 89% | 0% | 100% |
| National | 16% | 83% | 1% | 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 category includes children where anything other than a No (0) or Yes (1) was in the Ethnicity field. |
| 4. | Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were unable to report ACF-801 case-level data before report preparation. |
| 5. | Some States have not yet completed modifications of their state systems to capture and report the updated Census race and ethnicity requirements. |
| 6. | Alaska’s population reported does not accurately reflect the population served due to sampling difficulties the State is trying to resolve. |
| 7. | In some instances, the Total may appear to be slightly more or less than 100% because of rounding. |
