FFY 2004 CCDF Data Tables (Final, May 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 (FFY2004) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Employment | Training/ Education |
Both Emp &Training/Education | ProtectiveServices | Other | Invalid/Not Reported | Total |
| Alabama | 79% | 8% | 5% | 8% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Alaska | 84% | 5% | 7% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| American Samoa | 74% | 2% | 22% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 100% |
| Arizona | 70% | 1% | 9% | 19% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Arkansas | 84% | 8% | 0% | 5% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| California | 81% | 8% | 6% | 2% | 4% | 0% | 100% |
| Colorado | 77% | 16% | 4% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| Connecticut | 89% | 9% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Delaware | 87% | 5% | 1% | 3% | 4% | 0% | 100% |
| District of Columbia | 55% | 34% | 2% | 1% | 7% | 0% | 100% |
| Florida | 72% | 5% | 8% | 14% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Georgia | 75% | 16% | 3% | 4% | 1% | 1% | 100% |
| Guam | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Hawaii | 79% | 6% | 12% | 1% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| Idaho | 70% | 13% | 17% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Illinois | 88% | 5% | 2% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 100% |
| Indiana | 69% | 12% | 9% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 100% |
| Iowa | 79% | 13% | 1% | 7% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Kansas | 89% | 8% | 2% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Kentucky | 75% | 12% | 2% | 11% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Louisiana | 79% | 9% | 10% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Maine | 85% | 5% | 5% | 2% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Maryland | 81% | 12% | 6% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Massachusetts | 76% | 10% | 0% | 10% | 3% | 2% | 100% |
| Michigan | 87% | 9% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Minnesota | 78% | 7% | 11% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 100% |
| Mississippi | 74% | 14% | 11% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Missouri | 66% | 21% | 1% | 10% | 1% | 2% | 100% |
| Montana | 68% | 13% | 16% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Nebraska | 71% | 15% | 3% | 11% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Nevada | 80% | 10% | 3% | 0% | 7% | 0% | 100% |
| New Hampshire | 80% | 11% | 0% | 8% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| New Jersey | 80% | 3% | 2% | 5% | 10% | 0% | 100% |
| New Mexico | 47% | 10% | 10% | 0% | 33% | 0% | 100% |
| New York | 71% | 15% | 3% | 1% | 10% | 0% | 100% |
| North Carolina | 89% | 11% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| North Dakota | 69% | 22% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 63% | 28% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Ohio | 68% | 18% | 4% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 100% |
| Oklahoma | 65% | 9% | 24% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Oregon | 74% | 3% | 22% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Pennsylvania | 66% | 4% | 1% | 0% | 4% | 26% | 100% |
| Puerto Rico | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | 89% | 9% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| South Carolina | 80% | 20% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| South Dakota | 62% | 10% | 15% | 14% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Tennessee | 45% | 38% | 16% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Texas | 68% | 27% | 2% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| Utah | 87% | 0% | 4% | 0% | 10% | 0% | 100% |
| Vermont | 77% | 13% | 0% | 6% | 4% | 0% | 100% |
| Virgin Islands | 65% | 24% | 0% | 4% | 6% | 0% | 100% |
| Virginia | 82% | 5% | 10% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Washington | 83% | 8% | 1% | 8% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| West Virginia | 76% | 14% | 9% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Wisconsin | 89% | 1% | 8% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Wyoming | 89% | 11% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| National | 75% | 11% | 5% | 3% | 4% | 1% | 100% |
Notes applicable to this table:
1. |
The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FFY 2004. | |
2. |
All counts are "adjusted" numbers of families and children unless otherwise indicated. These "adjusted" numbers represent the number funded through CCDF only. The "adjusted" number is the raw or "unadjusted" number reported by the State multiplied by the pooling factor as reported on the ACF-800. A few States have indicated that the pooling factor reported on the ACF-800 is not applicable to the ACF-801. This report takes all these factors into consideration in calculating the "adjusted" numbers or percentages. | |
3. |
All states provide an actual unadjusted count of families served each month. For States reporting full population data, the number of child records reported each month were directly counted. However, for States that only submit samples, the ratio of children-to-families was determined each month from the samples and then multiplied by the reported number of families to obtain an estimate of the unadjusted number of children served each month. The unadjusted average number of families and children were obtained from the monthly numbers in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY). | |
4. |
A "0%" indication often means the value is less than 0.5% rather than actually zero. In a few instances, the sum of the categories may not appear to add up to exactly 100% because of rounding. | |
5. |
At the time of publication, Guam and Puerto Rico had not yet reported ACF-801 data for FFY 2004. Three other Territories submitted less than 12 months of ACF-801 data; American Samoa submitted five (5) months, the Northern Mariana Islands submitted 11 months, and the Virgin Islands submitted four (4) months. | |
6. |
Connecticut does not report ACF-801 data on all or nearly all children served by contracted centers. Wisconsin has been reporting some children that are authorized for care but do not receive care. Nebraska has been reporting child records for some children that do not receive a subsidy if other children in the same family are receiving a subsidy. Alaska's reported population does not accurately reflect the population served by CCDF due to sampling difficulties the State is trying to resolve. Furthermore Alaska does not report any children in foster care or families headed by a child. | |
7. |
The Invalid/Not Reported only includes family records with an invalid or missing number for ACF-801 element 6, Reason for Receiving Subsidized Child Care. | |
8. |
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. States reporting no families in this combination category of Both Employment and Training Education” include Arkansas, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wyoming (confirmed by ACF-801 notes). | |
9. |
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). For example, element 6 may indicate that the reason is employment, element 10 may indicate employment as an income source, and element 9 may show a monthly income of $0. All combinations of inconsistencies between these three types of data elements have been observed. | |
10. |
Connecticut reports that they inadvertently did not code families in protective services as such. | |
11. |
In some instances, the Total may appear to be slightly more or less than 100% because of rounding. |
 |