Skip Navigation
acfbanner  
ACF
Department of Health and Human Services 		  
		  Administration for Children and Families
          
ACF Home   |   Services   |   Working with ACF   |   Policy/Planning   |   About ACF   |   ACF News   |   HHS Home

  Questions?  |  Privacy  |  Site Index  |  Contact Us  |  Download Reader™Download Reader  |  Print Print      


The Child Care Bureau   Advanced
Search

FFY 2006 CCDF Data Tables (Final Data, July 2008)

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 2
Child Care and Development Fund
Percent of Children Served by Payment Method (FFY 2006)
State Grants/ Contracts % Certificates % Cash % Total
Alabama 0% 100% 0% 46,843
Alaska 0% 85% 15% 10,121
American Samoa - - - -
Arizona 0% 100% 0% 55,058
Arkansas 41% 59% 0% 24,533
California 37% 63% 0% 276,510
Colorado 1% 96% 3% 33,984
Connecticut 40% 60% 0% 27,661
Delaware 0% 100% 0% 12,307
District of Columbia 0% 100% 0% 4,470
Florida 51% 49% 0% 177,055
Georgia 0% 100% 0% 107,661
Guam 38% 62% 0% 2,375
Hawaii 46% 0% 54% 25,983
Idaho 0% 100% 0% 18,183
Illinois 7% 93% 0% 146,744
Indiana 3% 97% 0% 55,844
Iowa 0% 100% 0% 39,182
Kansas 0% 100% 0% 37,510
Kentucky 0% 100% 0% 55,171
Louisiana 0% 100% 0% 88,198
Maine 29% 69% 2% 8,646
Maryland 0% 100% 0% 40,798
Massachusetts 44% 56% 0% 69,872
Michigan 0% 71% 29% 133,244
Minnesota 0% 100% 0% 55,117
Mississippi 3% 97% 0% 42,582
Missouri 0% 100% 0% 59,707
Montana 0% 100% 0% 9,919
Nebraska 0% 100% 0% 25,481
Nevada 20% 80% 0% 15,440
New Hampshire 0% 100% 0% 12,650
New Jersey 19% 81% 0% 72,516
New Mexico 0% 100% 0% 36,567
New York 19% 81% 0% 225,158
North Carolina 0% 100% 0% 112,608
North Dakota 0% 100% 0% 8,020
Northern Mariana Islands 0% 0% 100% 639
Ohio 0% 100% 0% 72,187
Oklahoma 0% 100% 0% 46,319
Oregon 3% 97% 0% 38,386
Pennsylvania 0% 78% 22% 127,848
Puerto Rico 71% 29% 0% 13,967
Rhode Island 0% 100% 0% 10,714
South Carolina 0% 100% 0% 36,764
South Dakota 1% 99% 0% 9,530
Tennessee 0% 100% 0% 73,229
Texas 0% 100% 0% 243,381
Utah 0% 0% 100% 23,290
Vermont 3% 97% 0% 10,906
Virgin Islands 0% 100% 0% 1,092
Virginia 0% 0% 100% 56,498
Washington 0% 81% 19% 95,355
West Virginia 0% 100% 0% 16,333
Wisconsin 0% 100% 0% 47,832
Wyoming 0% 100% 0% 8,559
National Total 11% 85% 4% 3,106,546

Notes applicable to this table:
1. The source for this table is ACF-800 data for FFY 2006. The ACF-800 is based on an annual unduplicated count of families and children; i.e., a family or child that receives one hour of service on one day is counted the same as a family or child that receives full-time care throughout the fiscal year.
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. DC has indicated that the pooling factor reported on the ACF-800 is not applicable to the ACF-801. This report takes this factor into consideration in calculating the "adjusted" numbers or percentages.
3. 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.
4. At the time of publication American Samoa had not submitted any ACF-800 data for FFY 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