Child Care Bureau: CCDF Federal Fiscal Year 2004 Data Tables, Final Data, May 2006

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 Income

The entire collection of tables is also available in Excel or PDF format.

Table 16 Child Care and Development Fund Average Monthly Percent of Families Receiving TANF (FFY2004)
State	TANF (Yes)
Alabama	10%
Alaska	9%
American Samoa	0%
Arizona	24%
Arkansas	44%
California	15%
Colorado	27%
Connecticut	70%
Delaware	15%
District of Columbia	23%
Florida	12%
Georgia	20%
Guam	-
Hawaii	19%
Idaho	2%
Illinois	6%
Indiana	24%
Iowa	41%
Kansas	11%
Kentucky	2%
Louisiana	14%
Maine	4%
Maryland	16%
Massachusetts	20%
Michigan	32%
Minnesota	40%
Mississippi	0%
Missouri	30%
Montana	14%
Nebraska	32%
Nevada	30%
New Hampshire	26%
New Jersey	16%
New Mexico	12%
New York	38%
North Carolina	6%
North Dakota	20%
Northern Mariana Islands	0%
Ohio	18%
Oklahoma	16%
Oregon	32%
Pennsylvania	8%
Puerto Rico	-
Rhode Island	10%
South Carolina	26%
South Dakota	8%
Tennessee	63%
Texas	2%
Utah	0%
Vermont	16%
Virgin Islands	5%
Virginia	27%
Washington	18%
West Virginia	12%
Wisconsin	11%
Wyoming	0%
National Average	19%

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 percentage shown as "Yes" is the number reported as "Yes" divided by the count of all families including those that answered "Yes", "No", and No valid response.
8.	Utah Reported no families receiving TANF. However, UT reported 4.8% and 7.3% of families receiving TANF in FFY 2002 and 2003 respectively. Alabama reported no families receiving TANF for the month of November 2003, although AL reported typical percentages of families receiving TANF in all other FFY 2004 months.