Health and Human Services: 2002 final data

8/14/2019 Health and Human Services: 2002 final data

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/health-and-human-services-2002-final-data 1/30

Table 1Child Care and Development Fund

Average Monthly Adjusted Number of Families and Children Served (FFY 2002)States/Territories Average Number of Families Average Number of Children

Alabama 18,800 32,300

Alaska 3,700 6,200

American Samoa 300 400

Arizona 15,600 26,600

Arkansas 6,000 10,400

California 107,900 163,300

Colorado 14,000 25,100

Connecticut 8,900 15,300

Delaware 3,800 6,300

District of Columbia 6,600 9,200

Florida 55,500 96,000

Georgia 36,000 63,800

Guam 200 300

Hawaii 7,100 11,400

Idaho 4,300 7,600

Illinois 45,200 88,900

Indiana 22,700 41,400Iowa 9,400 15,400

Kansas 8,500 15,500

Kentucky 22,700 39,100

Louisiana 26,200 45,700

Maine 2,500 3,600

Maryland 17,500 28,100

Massachusetts 22,600 32,500

Michigan 19,500 38,400

Minnesota 14,900 26,600

Mississippi 11,600 19,900

Missouri 20,700 34,500

Montana 4,100 6,800Nebraska 7,200 12,300

Nevada 5,000 8,400

New Hampshire 4,700 7,000

New Jersey 28,900 43,300

New Mexico 13,100 22,700

New York 85,900 138,100

North Carolina 48,800 77,300

North Dakota 3,000 4,600

Northern Marianas 100 200

Ohio 50,000 86,800

Oklahoma 20,900 34,500

Oregon 13,200 24,200

Pennsylvania 29,000 51,400Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 3,100 4,900

South Carolina 13,100 22,300

South Dakota 2,300 3,700

Tennessee 25,600 49,900

Texas 61,500 116,200

Utah 4,800 9,100

Vermont 2,200 3,300

Virgin Islands

- -

- -






Percent of Children Served by Payment Method (FFY 2002)

State Certificates % Cash % Total

Alabama 0% 100% 0% 56,672

Alaska 58% 42% 0% 16,717

American Samoa 100% 0% 0% 1,153

Arizona 0% 100% 0% 49,852

Arkansas 0% 100% 0% 20,074

California 42% 58% 0% 282,039

Colorado 2% 96% 1% 49,384

Connecticut 23% 77% 0% 29,725

Delaware 0% 100% 0% 10,603

District of Columbia 52% 48% 0% 9,876

Florida 61% 39% 0% 168,332

Georgia 5% 95% 0% 122,409

Guam 0% 100% 0% 762

Hawaii 32% 0% 68% 33,355

Idaho 0% 100% 0% 14,336

Illinois 11% 89% 0% 158,852Indiana 2% 98% 0% 78,559

Iowa 0% 100% 0% 31,245

Kansas 0% 93% 7% 32,403

Kentucky 0% 100% 0% 77,966

Louisiana 0% 100% 0% 101,409

Maine 26% 74% 0% 7,643

Maryland 0% 100% 0% 51,287

Massachusetts 50% 50% 0% 70,970

Michigan 0% 100% 0% 59,261

Minnesota 0% 100% 0% 51,106

Mississippi 2% 98% 0% 37,302

Missouri 0% 100% 0% 64,868Montana 0% 99% 1% 12,348

Nebraska 0% 100% 0% 26,483

Nevada 17% 83% 0% 18,213

New Hampshire 0% 100% 0% 12,195

New Jersey 17% 83% 0% 80,766

New Mexico 0% 100% 0% 37,255

New York 31% 69% 0% 175,128

North Carolina 0% 100% 0% 123,504

North Dakota 0% 100% 0% 10,126

Northern Mariana Islands 0% 100% 0% 343

Ohio 0% 100% 0% 153,159

Oklahoma 0% 100% 0% 70,774

Oregon 7% 93% 0% 49,797Pennsylvania 0% 78% 22% 111,628

Puerto Rico 48% 52% 0% 21,676

Rhode Island 0% 100% 0% 7,675

South Carolina 11% 89% 0% 42,663

South Dakota 2% 98% 0% 8,024

Tennessee 0% 100% 0% 76,018

Texas 0% 100% 0% 227,326

Utah 0% 0% 100% 18,250

Vermont 6% 95% 0% 7,261

Grants /Contracts %



Virgin Islands 4% 96% 0% 1,557

Virginia 0% 100% 0% 52,439

Washington 0% 70% 30% 94,128

West Virginia 0% 100% 0% 17,612

Wisconsin 0% 100% 0% 37,271

Wyoming 0% 100% 0% 6,932

National Total 13% 84% 3% 3,188,711Notes applicable to this table: Data as of: 27-SEP-2004

4. New York Reports Monthly Averages rather than the disaggregated Annual total reported by all other states.

1. The source for this table is ACF-800 data for FFY 2002. 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 representthe number funded through CCDF only. The "adjusted" number is the raw or "unadjusted" number reported by the Statemultiplied by the pooling factor as reported on the ACF-800. A few States have indicated that the pooling factor reported onthe 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. A "0%" indication often means the value is less than 0.5% rather than actually zero. In a few instances, the sum of thecategories may not appear to add up to exactly 100% because of rounding.




Percent of Children Served by Types of Care (FFY 2002)

State Child's Home Family Home Center Total

Alabama 0% 12% 6% 82% 56,672

Alaska 10% 44% 3% 42% 16,717

American Samoa 0% 0% 0% 100% 1,153

Arizona 3% 19% 5% 73% 49,852

Arkansas 0% 24% 0% 76% 20,074

California 5% 31% 9% 55% 282,039

Colorado 7% 33% 0% 59% 49,384

Connecticut 41% 16% 0% 43% 29,725

Delaware 4% 37% 2% 56% 10,603

District of Columbia 0% 3% 0% 97% 9,876

Florida 0% 12% 0% 87% 168,332

Georgia 2% 14% 2% 82% 122,409

Guam 15% 26% 1% 58% 762

Hawaii 5% 45% 0% 49% 33,355

Idaho 1% 41% 14% 44% 14,336

Illinois 27% 37% 1% 35% 158,852Indiana 3% 53% 0% 45% 78,559

Iowa 1% 49% 14% 36% 31,245

Kansas 7% 17% 41% 35% 32,403

Kentucky 2% 25% 2% 71% 77,966

Louisiana 14% 13% 0% 72% 101,409

Maine 4% 48% 0% 48% 7,643

Maryland 14% 45% 0% 41% 51,287

Massachusetts 5% 9% 14% 72% 70,970

Michigan 31% 45% 9% 16% 59,261

Minnesota 14% 50% 0% 36% 51,106

Mississippi 6% 12% 2% 80% 37,302

Missouri 3% 46% 2% 49% 64,868Montana 1% 28% 34% 37% 12,348

Nebraska 1% 42% 12% 44% 26,483

Nevada 3% 13% 1% 83% 18,213

New Hampshire - - - - 12,195

New Jersey 3% 28% 0% 69% 80,766

New Mexico 0% 50% 6% 44% 37,255

New York 13% 39% 6% 42% 175,128

North Carolina 0% 15% 0% 85% 123,504

North Dakota 0% 44% 27% 29% 10,126

Northern Mariana Islands 0% 67% 0% 33% 343

Ohio 0% 41% 1% 59% 153,159

Oklahoma 0% 18% 0% 81% 70,774

Oregon 0% 76% 3% 21% 49,797Pennsylvania 11% 44% 4% 41% 111,628

Puerto Rico 0% 39% 0% 61% 21,676

Rhode Island 3% 31% 0% 66% 7,675

South Carolina 3% 17% 4% 77% 42,663

South Dakota 1% 50% 9% 40% 8,024

Tennessee 2% 16% 5% 77% 76,018

Texas 8% 13% 3% 76% 227,326

Utah 11% 46% 6% 37% 18,250

Vermont 5% 52% 0% 44% 7,261

GroupHome



Virgin Islands 3% 3% 9% 86% 1,557

Virginia 1% 37% 0% 62% 52,439

Washington 20% 37% 0% 43% 94,128

West Virginia 0% 49% 3% 48% 17,612

Wisconsin 0% 38% 0% 61% 37,271

Wyoming 19% 39% 13% 28% 6,932

National Total 7% 30% 4% 59% 3,188,711Notes applicable to this table: Data as of: 27-SEP-2004

4. New Hampshire did not report number of children by setting type.

5. New York reports monthly averages rather than the disaggregated annual totals reported by all other states.

1. The source for this table is ACF-800 data for FFY 2002. 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 thenumber funded through CCDF only. The "adjusted" number is the raw or "unadjusted" number reported by the State multiplied by thepooling factor as reported on the ACF-800. A few States have indicated that the pooling factor reported on the ACF-800 is notapplicable to the ACF-801. This report takes all these factors 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 categoriesmay not appear to add up to exactly 100% because of rounding.




State Licensed/Regulated Total

Alabama 79% 21% 56,672

Alaska 56% 44% 16,717

American Samoa 100% 0% 1,153

Arizona 87% 13% 49,852

Arkansas 100% 0% 20,074

California 69% 31% 282,039

Colorado 78% 22% 49,384

Connecticut 50% 51% 29,725

Delaware 79% 21% 10,603

District of Columbia 54% 46% 9,876

Florida 92% 8% 168,332

Georgia 93% 7% 122,409

Guam 55% 45% 762

Hawaii 22% 78% 33,355Idaho 57% 43% 14,336

Illinois 48% 52% 158,852

Indiana 53% 47% 78,559

Iowa 78% 22% 31,245

Kansas 83% 17% 32,403

Kentucky 79% 21% 77,966

Louisiana 72% 28% 101,409

Maine 79% 21% 7,643

Maryland 76% 24% 51,287

Massachusetts 92% 8% 70,970

Michigan 34% 66% 59,261

Minnesota 60% 40% 51,106Mississippi 82% 18% 37,302

Missouri 62% 38% 64,868

Montana 88% 12% 12,348

Nebraska 79% 21% 26,483

Nevada 72% 28% 18,213

New Hampshire - - 12,195

New Jersey 82% 18% 80,766

New Mexico 51% 49% 37,255

New York 61% 39% 175,128

North Carolina 98% 2% 123,504

North Dakota 92% 8% 10,126

Northern Mariana Islands 100% 0% 343

Ohio 100% 0% 153,159

Oklahoma 100% 0% 70,774

Oregon 42% 58% 49,797

Pennsylvania 54% 46% 111,628

Puerto Rico 61% 39% 21,676

Rhode Island 89% 11% 7,675

South Carolina 84% 16% 42,663

South Dakota 87% 13% 8,024

Tennessee 88% 12% 76,018

Texas 82% 18% 227,326

Percent of Children Served in Regulated Settings vs.Settings Legally Operating Without Regulation (FFY 2002)

Legally OperatingWithout Regulation



Utah 57% 43% 18,250

Vermont 83% 17% 7,261

Virgin Islands 96% 4% 1,557

Virginia 86% 14% 52,439

Washington 70% 30% 94,128

West Virginia 92% 8% 17,612

Wisconsin 100% 0% 37,271

Wyoming 54% 46% 6,932

National Total 75% 25% 3,188,711Notes applicable to this table: Data as of: 27-SEP-2004

4. New Hampshire did not report the number of children by setting type.5. New York Reports Monthly Averages rather than the disaggregated Annual total reported by all other states.

1. The source for this table is ACF-800 data for FFY 2002. The ACF-800 is based on an annual unduplicated count of families andchildren; 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 thenumber funded through CCDF only. The "adjusted" number is the raw or "unadjusted" number reported by the State multiplied by thepooling factor as reported on the ACF-800. A few States have indicated that the pooling factor reported on the ACF-800 is notapplicable to the ACF-801. This report takes all these factors 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 categoriesmay not appear to add up to exactly 100% because of rounding.




State Relative Non-Relative Total

Alabama 29% 71% 11,892

Alaska 33% 67% 7,416

American Samoa - - 0

Arizona 100% 0% 6,327

Arkansas - - 0

California 58% 42% 86,916

Colorado 47% 53% 11,102

Connecticut 88% 12% 15,012

Delaware 47% 53% 2,175

District of Columbia 1% 99% 4,561

Florida 8% 92% 14,078

Georgia 57% 43% 8,698

Guam 89% 11% 344

Hawaii 50% 50% 25,912

Idaho 49% 51% 6,116Illinois 56% 44% 82,718

Indiana 30% 70% 37,214

Iowa 28% 72% 6,888

Kansas 79% 21% 5,471

Kentucky 64% 36% 16,045

Louisiana 40% 60% 28,133

Maine 55% 45% 1,569

Maryland 81% 19% 12,132

Massachusetts 63% 37% 5,890

Michigan 76% 24% 39,357

Minnesota 37% 63% 20,212

Mississippi 59% 41% 6,691

Missouri 25% 75% 24,361

Montana 53% 47% 1,466

Nebraska 0% 100% 5,585

Nevada 12% 88% 5,186

New Hampshire - - -

New Jersey 25% 75% 14,460

New Mexico 74% 26% 18,332

New York 44% 56% 68,432

North Carolina 80% 20% 3,057

North Dakota 100% 0% 825

Northern Mariana Islands - - 0

Ohio - - 0

Oklahoma - - 0Oregon 75% 25% 28,668

Pennsylvania 13% 87% 51,236

Puerto Rico 25% 75% 8,414

Rhode Island 78% 22% 810

South Carolina 2% 99% 6,688

South Dakota 75% 25% 1,027

Tennessee 31% 69% 8,990

Texas 100% 0% 41,516

Utah 91% 9% 7,820

Of Children in Settings Legally Operating Without Regulation,Percent Served by Relatives vs. Non-Relatives (FFY 2002)






Percent of Children Served in All Types of Care (FFY 2002)

State

Total % Licensed or Regulated Providers Providers Legally Operating without Regulatio

of Center

Child's Home Family Home Group Home

Children Relative Relative Relative

Alabama 100% 0% 6% 6% 67% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0

Alaska 100% 0% 10% 3% 42% 4% 6% 11% 23% 0% 0

American Samoa 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0Arizona 100% 0% 9% 5% 73% 3% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0

Arkansas 100% 0% 24% 0% 76% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0

California 100% 0% 11% 9% 50% 4% 1% 14% 6% 0% 0

Colorado 100% 0% 18% 0% 59% 1% 6% 9% 6% 0% 0

Connecticut 100% 0% 6% 0% 43% 35% 6% 10% 0% 0% 0

Delaware 100% 0% 32% 2% 46% 4% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0

District of Columbia 100% 0% 2% 0% 51% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0

Florida 100% 0% 11% 0% 81% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0

Georgia 100% 0% 9% 2% 82% 1% 1% 3% 2% 0% 0

Guam 100% 0% 0% 1% 54% 15% 0% 25% 1% 0% 0

Hawaii 100% 0% 4% 0% 19% 5% 1% 34% 7% 0% 0

Idaho 100% 0% 0% 14% 44% 0% 1% 21% 21% 0% 0

Illinois 100% 0% 15% 1% 32% 11% 16% 18% 4% 0% 0

Indiana 100% 0% 28% 0% 25% 2% 1% 13% 12% 0% 0Iowa 100% 0% 28% 14% 36% 0% 1% 6% 15% 0% 0

Kansas 100% 0% 7% 41% 35% 4% 4% 10% 0% 0% 0

Kentucky 100% 0% 6% 2% 71% 1% 1% 12% 7% 0% 0

Louisiana 100% 0% 0% 0% 72% 8% 7% 3% 10% 0% 0

Maine 100% 0% 32% 0% 48% 2% 2% 9% 7% 0% 0

Maryland 100% 0% 36% 0% 41% 10% 4% 9% 0% 0% 0

Massachusetts 100% 0% 6% 14% 72% 2% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0

Michigan 100% 0% 9% 9% 16% 15% 16% 35% 0% 0% 0

Minnesota 100% 0% 28% 0% 33% 7% 7% 8% 15% 0% 0

Mississippi 100% 0% 0% 2% 80% 5% 1% 6% 6% 0% 0

Missouri 100% 0% 17% 2% 43% 2% 1% 7% 22% 0% 0

Montana 100% 0% 17% 34% 37% 1% 0% 5% 5% 0% 0

Nebraska 100% 0% 23% 12% 44% 0% 1% 0% 20% 0% 0

Nevada 100% 0% 4% 1% 67% 2% 1% 1% 8% 0% 0New Hampshire - - - - - - - - - -

New Jersey 100% 0% 13% 0% 69% 1% 2% 4% 11% 0% 0

Child'sHome

FamilyHome

GroupHome Non-

RelativeNon-

RelativeNon-

Relativ



New Mexico 100% 0% 1% 6% 44% 0% 0% 36% 13%

New York 100% 0% 13% 6% 41% 6% 7% 11% 15%

North Carolina 100% 0% 13% 0% 84% 0% 0% 2% 0%

North Dakota 100% 0% 36% 27% 29% 0% 0% 8% 0%

Northern Mariana Islands 100% 0% 67% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Ohio 100% 0% 41% 1% 59% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Oklahoma 100% 0% 18% 0% 81% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Oregon 100% 0% 21% 1% 20% 0% 0% 42% 13%Pennsylvania 100% 0% 9% 4% 41% 3% 8% 3% 31%

Puerto Rico 100% 0% 1% 0% 61% 0% 0% 10% 29%

Rhode Island 100% 0% 23% 0% 66% 1% 2% 8% 0%

South Carolina 100% 0% 4% 4% 77% 0% 3% 0% 13%

South Dakota 100% 0% 39% 9% 40% 1% 0% 9% 3%

Tennessee 100% 0% 6% 5% 77% 2% 0% 2% 8%

Texas 100% 0% 3% 3% 76% 8% 0% 10% 0%

Utah 100% 5% 8% 6% 37% 5% 1% 35% 3%

Vermont 100% 0% 40% 0% 44% 0% 4% 1% 11%

Virgin Islands 100% 0% 1% 9% 86% 2% 1% 1% 0%

Virginia 100% 1% 24% 0% 62% 0% 0% 8% 5%

Washington 100% 0% 28% 0% 43% 11% 10% 9% 0%

West Virginia 100% 0% 42% 3% 46% 0% 0% 6% 0%Wisconsin 100% 0% 38% 0% 61% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Wyoming 100% 0% 13% 13% 28% 15% 4% 15% 11%

National Percentage 100% 0% 14% 4% 57% 4% 3% 9% 7%Notes applicable to this table:

4. New Hampshire did not report number of children by setting type.


1. The source for this table is ACF-800 data for FFY 2002. The ACF-800 is based on an annual unduplicated count of families and children; i.e. a famiof service on one day is counted the same as a family or child that receives full-time care throughout the f iscal year.

2. All counts are "adjusted" numbers of families and children unless otherwise indicated. These "adjusted" numbers represent the number funded throunumber 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 indicatreported on the ACF-800 is not applicable to the ACF-801. This report takes all these factors into consideration in calculating the "adjusted" numbers o

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 toof rounding.



Table 7Child Care and Development Fund and Additional State Efforts

Number of Child Care Providers Receiving CCDF Funds (FFY 2002)

State Child's Home Family Home Group Home Center Total

Alabama 54 2,645 391 1,586 4,676

Alaska 755 2,942 101 331 4,129

American Samoa 0 0 0 25 25

Arizona 922 4,569 262 1,225 6,978

Arkansas 0 1,148 0 1,082 2,230

California 10,316 59,974 9,690 17,313 97,293

Colorado 2,331 7,363 0 1,542 11,236

Connecticut 15,009 4,181 46 1,492 20,728

Delaware 467 1,605 38 443 2,553

District of Columbia 21 184 0 278 483

Florida 356 6,886 0 8,937 16,179

Georgia 1,384 6,000 272 5,355 13,011

Guam 42 59 2 54 157

Hawaii 349 9,318 4 439 10,110

Idaho 88 2,846 405 430 3,769

Illinois 45,889 44,199 316 3,108 93,512

Indiana 816 9,953 0 1,454 12,223

Iowa 225 7,042 951 678 8,896Kansas 1,065 1,898 2,385 732 6,080

Kentucky 610 6,731 106 1,683 9,130

Louisiana 4,936 2,871 0 1,911 9,718

Maine 172 1,975 0 433 2,580

Maryland 3,849 7,666 0 1,615 13,130

Massachusetts 3,159 3,198 1,308 1,415 9,080

Michigan 31,514 44,336 2,592 2,483 80,925

Minnesota 4,781 17,417 0 1,569 23,767

Mississippi 1,402 2,139 90 1,369 5,000

Missouri 870 11,561 165 2,008 14,604

Montana 98 1,827 1,022 769 3,716

Nebraska 481 4,196 451 538 5,666

Nevada 222 823 10 488 1,543

New Hampshire - - - - 3,956

New Jersey 1,461 10,366 0 2,485 14,312

New Mexico 11 9,059 190 459 9,719

New York 8,968 28,639 1,774 4,874 44,255

North Carolina 220 5,705 0 4,319 10,244

North Dakota 0 2,131 875 98 3,104

Northern Mariana Islands 0 97 0 9 106

Ohio 30 17,492 100 3,521 21,143

Oklahoma 40 3,203 0 1,193 4,436

Oregon 40 15,520 135 1,227 16,922

Pennsylvania 5,035 20,484 592 3,560 29,671

Puerto Rico 87 6,724 0 1,100 7,911

Rhode Island 287 1,442 7 268 2,004

South Carolina 755 3,395 232 1,561 5,943South Dakota 86 1,435 77 199 1,797

Tennessee 524 2,989 432 1,678 5,623

Texas 10,368 15,261 988 6,093 32,710

Utah 1,388 5,955 354 496 8,193

Vermont 467 2,206 0 365 3,038

Virgin Islands 41 43 21 103 208

Virginia - - - - -

Washington 19,590 15,103 0 1,991 36,684

West Virginia 40 5,139 63 405 5,647

Wisconsin 83 6,684 0 1,956 8,723

Wyoming 489 1,326 186 136 2,137

National Total 182,193 457,950 26,633 100,881 771,613Notes applicable to this table: Data as of: 27-SEP-2004

1. The source for this table is ACF-800 data for FFY 2002, an unduplicated annual count.

2. This data has not been adjusted by the pooling factor (unadjusted data) because ACF-800 Data Element 6a it is reported as a count of providers receiving CCDF

3. Note that this table reports the number of providers (not the number of children). A provider that serves one child is counted the same as a provider serving 200 cd




Consumer Education Strategies Summary (FFY 2002)

State Other

Alabama Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Alaska Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NAmerican Samoa N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Arizona Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Arkansas Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

California Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Colorado Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Connecticut Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y

Delaware Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

District of Columbia Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Florida Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y

Georgia Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Guam Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Hawaii Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Idaho NA Y N Y Y N Y Y N

Illinois Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NIndiana Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Iowa N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Kansas NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Kentucky NA Y Y Y Y Y Y N N

Louisiana NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Maine Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Maryland NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Massachusetts Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Michigan NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Minnesota NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Mississippi N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N

Missouri Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Montana NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Nebraska N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Nevada Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N

New Hampshire Y Y Y Y Y N N N N

Grants /Contracts /Certificates

Info

Resource and

Referral

Provider List

Types/Quality of CareMaterials

Healthand

Safety

Child CareRegulatory

Info

Child CareComplaint

Policy

MassMedia

Estimatof FRecConEdu



New Jersey Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N

New Mexico NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

New York Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N

North Carolina Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N

North Dakota NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Ohio Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Oklahoma NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NOregon Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Pennsylvania NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Puerto Rico Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N

Rhode Island NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

South Carolina Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N

South Dakota NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Tennessee NA Y Y Y Y N Y N N

Texas Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Utah NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Vermont NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Virgin Islands NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Virginia Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y

Washington NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NWest Virginia Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Wisconsin NA Y N Y Y Y Y Y N

Wyoming NA Y Y Y Y N Y Y N

Total Yes 31 55 52 56 54 48 55 48 11Notes applicable to this table:

1. The source for this table is ACF-800 data for FFY 2002, an unduplicated annual count.

2. This data has not been adjusted by the pooling factor (unadjusted data) because it is impossible to tell which families receiving consumer information

3. NA=Not applicable, does not offer grants or contracts for subsidized child care slots.

4. A blank cell indicates that the State did not provide a response.


Northern MarianaIslands




Average Monthly Percent of Children In Care By Age Group (FFY 2002)0 to 1 yr to 2 yrs to 3 yrs to 4 yrs to 5 yrs to 6 yrs to 13+ yrs Invalid/No

State < 1 yr < 2 yrs < 3 yrs < 4 yrs < 5 yrs < 6 yrs < 13 yrs Reported

Alabama 8% 14% 15% 15% 13% 9% 27% 0%

Alaska 6% 11% 12% 13% 12% 10% 37% 1%

American Samoa 10% 21% 21% 23% 17% 8% 1% 0%

Arizona 6% 11% 13% 13% 13% 11% 33% 0%

Arkansas 10% 15% 16% 16% 13% 9% 22% 0%California 3% 5% 9% 14% 17% 12% 40% 0%

Colorado 7% 12% 13% 13% 12% 11% 32% 0%

Connecticut 5% 10% 11% 12% 12% 9% 41% 1%

Delaware 8% 12% 13% 13% 12% 10% 32% 0%

District of Columbia 3% 10% 15% 19% 15% 9% 29% 0%

Florida 6% 11% 13% 14% 13% 10% 33% 0%

Georgia 8% 14% 15% 14% 12% 9% 29% 0%

Guam 6% 12% 16% 20% 16% 12% 17% 0%

Hawaii 5% 11% 14% 16% 15% 9% 30% 1%

Idaho 7% 12% 13% 13% 13% 11% 31% 0%

Illinois 6% 9% 10% 11% 10% 9% 45% 0%

Indiana 4% 11% 13% 14% 13% 11% 34% 0%

Iowa 8% 12% 13% 13% 12% 9% 33% 0%

Kansas 7% 12% 14% 14% 13% 10% 30% 0%

Kentucky 7% 12% 13% 13% 12% 9% 32% 0%

Louisiana 7% 14% 16% 14% 11% 8% 30% 0%

Maine 4% 9% 12% 15% 17% 12% 32% 0%

Maryland 5% 11% 13% 13% 12% 10% 36% 0%

Massachusetts 5% 9% 11% 13% 13% 10% 38% 0%

Michigan 6% 10% 10% 10% 10% 9% 45% 0%

Minnesota 7% 10% 12% 12% 12% 11% 36% 0%

Mississippi 5% 10% 14% 14% 13% 10% 34% 0%

Missouri 7% 11% 13% 13% 12% 10% 33% 0%

Montana 7% 13% 14% 14% 13% 11% 29% 0%

Nebraska 9% 12% 13% 13% 12% 10% 31% 0%

Nevada 5% 10% 12% 13% 13% 11% 35% 1%

New Hampshire 4% 9% 13% 14% 15% 12% 33% 0%

New Jersey 4% 10% 13% 13% 13% 12% 35% 1%

New Mexico 7% 12% 13% 13% 12% 10% 35% 0%

New York 3% 8% 11% 13% 13% 11% 40% 0%

North Carolina 5% 11% 15% 15% 13% 10% 31% 0%

North Dakota 9% 13% 13% 14% 13% 12% 27% 0%



Northern Mariana Islands 6% 13% 16% 13% 13% 10% 29% 0

Ohio 7% 11% 13% 13% 13% 10% 33% 0

Oklahoma 8% 13% 14% 14% 13% 10% 28% 0

Oregon 7% 11% 12% 12% 11% 10% 37% 0

Pennsylvania 5% 10% 11% 12% 12% 11% 40% 0

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 5% 9% 11% 13% 13% 11% 38% 0

South Carolina 4% 10% 14% 14% 13% 11% 33% 0

South Dakota 8% 13% 14% 14% 13% 11% 28% 0

Tennessee 6% 12% 13% 13% 12% 10% 34% 0

Texas 7% 12% 14% 14% 12% 10% 32% 0

Utah 6% 10% 12% 13% 13% 12% 34% 0

Vermont 5% 9% 12% 14% 13% 11% 37% 0

Virgin Islands

Virginia 6% 11% 14% 14% 13% 9% 33% 0

Washington 6% 11% 12% 12% 12% 10% 36% 0

West Virginia 6% 10% 12% 13% 12% 10% 38% 0

Wisconsin 8% 12% 13% 13% 12% 10% 32% 0

Wyoming 8% 12% 14% 14% 13% 11% 30% 0

6% 10% 13% 13% 13% 10% 35% 0%

Notes applicable to this report:1. The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FFY 2002.

5. At the time of publication, the following States/Territories have not yet reported ACF-801 for FFY 2002: Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands.

7. The Invalid/Not Reported category only includes children with an invalid year/month of birth or report date.

8. All Florida's out of range date-of-birth children (0.1%) are special needs children.

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

National

2. All percentages are based on "adjusted" numbers of families and children unless otherwise indicated. These "adjusted" numbers represenonly. The "adjusted" number is the raw or "unadjusted" number reported by the State multiplied by the pooling factor as reported on the ACFthat the pooling factor reported on the ACF-800 is not applicable to the ACF-801. This report takes all these factors into consideration in calcpercentages.

3. All states provide an actual unadjusted count of families served each month. For States reporting full population data, the number of childdirectly counted. However, for States that only submit samples, the ratio of children-to-families was determined each month from the samplreported number of families to obtain an estimate of the unadjusted number of children served each month. The unadjusted average numbeobtained 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 nobecause of rounding.

6. Connecticut does not report ACF-801 data on all or nearly all children served by contracted centers. Wisconsin has been reporting somebut do not receive care. Nebraska has been reporting child records for some children that do not receive a subsidy if other children in the saAlaska's reported population does not accurately reflect the population served by CCDF due to sampling difficulties the State is trying to resoreport any children in foster care or families headed by a child.





Ohio 71% 16% 3% 0% 11%

Oklahoma 70% 4% 22% 3% 0%

Oregon 78% 3% 18% 1% 0%

Pennsylvania 91% 3% 1% 0% 5%

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 86% 11% 3% 0% 0%

South Carolina 83% 17% 0% 0% 0%

South Dakota 59% 11% 16% 14% 0%Tennessee 50% 37% 12% 0% 1%

Texas 66% 28% 3% 0% 2%

Utah 90% 2% 3% 0% 5%

Vermont 80% 13% 0% 4% 4%

Virgin Islands

Virginia 81% 5% 12% 0% 1%

Washington 82% 7% 1% 7% 2%

West Virginia 82% 11% 7% 0% 0%

Wisconsin 91% 1% 7% 0% 2%

Wyoming 87% 13% 0% 0% 0%

77% 11% 5% 3% 4%

Notes applicable to this report:

1. The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FFY 2002.

5. At the time of publication, the following States/Territories have not yet reported ACF-801 for FFY 2002: Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands

7. The Invalid/Not Reported only includes family records with an invalid or missing number for ACF-801 element 6, Reason for Receiving

- - - - -

- - - - -

National

2. All percentages are based on "adjusted" numbers of families and children unless otherwise indicated. These "adjusted" numbers reponly. The "adjusted" number is the raw or "unadjusted" number reported by the State multiplied by the pooling factor as reported on the the pooling factor reported on the ACF-800 is not applicable to the ACF-801. This report takes all these factors into consideration in calcpercentages.

3. All states provide an actual unadjusted count of families served each month. For States reporting full population data, the number ofdirectly counted. However, for States that only submit samples, the ratio of children-to-families was determined each month from the snumber of families to obtain an estimate of the unadjusted number of children served each month. The unadjusted average number ofmonthly numbers in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY). National percentages are based on the "adjusted" national numbers unless otherwpercentages are equivalent to a weighted average of the State percentages, where the weights are the "adjusted" number of families or

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 mabecause of rounding.

6. Connecticut does not report ACF-801 data on all or nearly all children served by contracted centers. Wisconsin has been reporting sdo not receive care. Nebraska has been reporting child records for some children that do not receive a subsidy if other children in the sAlaska's reported population does not accurately reflect the population served by CCDF due to sampling difficulties the State is trying toreport any children in foster care or families headed by a child.

8. Several States only capture the primary reason for receiving services and therefore do not report any families in the Both Employmereporting no families in this combination category of Both Employment and Training Education” include Arkansas, New Hampshire, NorWyoming (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 9elements 10 through 15 (the sources of income). For example, element 6 may indicate that the reason is employment, element 10 may and element 9 may show a monthly income of $0. All combinations of inconsistencies between these three types of data elements have




Average Monthly Percentages of Children by Racial Group (FFY 2002)

State

Native

Asian

Black / Native

White

Invalid /American / African Hawaiian / Multi- Not

Alaskan Native American Pacific Racial Reported

Alabama 0% 0% 71% 0% 28% 0% 1%

Alaska 8% 3% 9% 2% 53% 11% 15%

American Samoa 0% 0% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0%

Arizona 5% 0% 13% 1% 78% 3% 0%

Arkansas 0% 0% 68% 0% 31% 0% 0%

California 1% 4% 26% 1% 36% 2% 31%

Colorado 1% 1% 19% 0% 77% 0% 1%

Connecticut 0% 0% 40% 0% 21% 1% 37%

Delaware 0% 0% 66% 0% 26% 0% 8%

District of Columbia 0% 0% 95% 0% 3% 0% 2%

Florida 0% 0% 52% 0% 46% 0% 2%

Georgia 0% 0% 80% 0% 18% 1% 1%

Guam 0% 11% 0% 84% 0% 5% 0%

Hawaii 0% 36% 3% 44% 12% 2% 3%

Idaho 2% 0% 1% 0% 83% 1% 13%

Illinois 0% 0% 68% 2% 16% 0% 13%Indiana 0% 0% 48% 0% 46% 5% 0%

Iowa 1% 1% 21% 0% 78% 0% 0%

Kansas 1% 0% 30% 0% 66% 0% 2%

Kentucky 0% 0% 30% 0% 63% 0% 6%

Louisiana 0% 0% 84% 0% 15% 0% 0%

Maine 2% 0% 3% 0% 87% 4% 5%

Maryland 0% 0% 77% 0% 19% 1% 2%

Massachusetts 0% 1% 12% 0% 22% 0% 65%

Michigan

Minnesota 4% 3% 29% 1% 61% 2% 0%

Mississippi 0% 0% 87% 0% 11% 1% 0%

Missouri 0% 0% 54% 0% 43% 0% 3%

Montana 10% 0% 1% 0% 84% 2% 3%

Nebraska 3% 0% 27% 0% 69% 0% 0%

Nevada 2% 1% 29% 1% 62% 3% 1%

New Hampshire 0% 0% 1% 0% 18% 0% 80%

New Jersey 0% 1% 52% 0% 15% 0% 31%

New Mexico 6% 0% 4% 0% 86% 3% 0%

New York 0% 1% 24% 0% 19% 1% 54%

North Carolina 3% 0% 59% 1% 36% 0% 0%

North Dakota 15% 0% 3% 0% 79% 2% 0%

Northern Mariana Islands 0% 2% 0% 98% 0% 1% 0%

Ohio 0% 0% 55% 0% 41% 0% 3%

Oklahoma 9% 0% 35% 0% 56% 0% 0%

Oregon 2% 2% 10% 0% 85% 1% 0%

Pennsylvania 0% 0% 22% 0% 23% 1% 54%

Puerto RicoRhode Island 0% 0% 11% 0% 31% 1% 58%

South Carolina 0% 0% 80% 0% 20% 0% 0%

South Dakota 24% 0% 4% 0% 70% 1% 0%

Tennessee 0% 0% 72% 0% 28% 0% 0%

Texas 0% 0% 38% 0% 17% 0% 44%

Utah 0% 6% 4% 0% 77% 0% 13%

Vermont 0% 0% 1% 0% 98% 0% 0%

Virgin Islands

Virginia 0% 1% 67% 0% 31% 1% 0%

Washington 2% 1% 8% 0% 37% 0% 52%

West Virginia 0% 0% 14% 0% 79% 6% 1%

Wisconsin 2% 0% 35% 0% 36% 1% 26%

Wyoming 3% 0% 4% 0% 81% 0% 12%1% 1% 42% 1% 36% 1% 18%Notes applicable to this report: Data as


- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

National




8. 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,

3. All states provide an actual unadjusted count of families served each month. For States reporting full population data, the number of childdirectly counted. However, for States that only submit samples, the ratio of children-to-families was determined each month from the sampreported number of families to obtain an estimate of the unadjusted number of children served each month. The unadjusted average numbobtained from the monthly numbers in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY). National percentages are based on the "adjusted" national numbers uwords, the national percentages are equivalent to a weighted average of the State percentages, where the weights are the "adjusted" numbappropriate.

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 no

because of rounding.

6. Connecticut does not report ACF-801 data on all or nearly all children served by contracted centers. Wisconsin has been reporting somebut do not receive care. Nebraska has been reporting child records for some children that do not receive a subsidy if other children in the sAlaska's reported population does not accurately reflect the population served by CCDF due to sampling difficulties the State is trying to resoreport any children in foster care or families headed by a child.

7. The multi-racial category includes any child where more than one race was answered Yes (1). Several States do not capture and report mthus do not provide multi-racial data.

9. Several States including Washington are still reporting ethnicity (Latino/Hispanic) as a race rather than as an ethnicity in accordance with 3 standard. In many of these instances if a child is designated as Latino, no race is designated. In many states including Texas, Illinois, Loreporting of race is optional and no race will be reported other than self reporting. All Michigan race data have a known system generated eappear to be multi-racial. Therefore, no MI race data were reported for FFY 2002. The MI data were not included in the calculation of the n



Table 12

Child Care and Development FundAverage Monthly Percentages of Children by Latino Ethnicity (FFY 2002)

State Latino Not Latino Invalid/Not Reported Total

Alabama 0% 100% 0% 100%

Alaska 9% 91% 0% 100%

American Samoa 0% 100% 0% 100%

Arizona 43% 57% 0% 100%Arkansas 1% 99% 0% 100%

California 47% 51% 2% 100%

Colorado 34% 66% 0% 100%

Connecticut 33% 66% 1% 100%

Delaware 7% 93% 0% 100%

District of Columbia 7% 93% 0% 100%

Florida 20% 80% 0% 100%

Georgia 1% 99% 0% 100%

Guam 0% 100% 0% 100%

Hawaii 2% 98% 0% 100%

Idaho 15% 86% 0% 100%

Illinois 8% 87% 5% 100%

Indiana 5% 96% 0% 100%Iowa 4% 96% 0% 100%

Kansas 8% 92% 0% 100%

Kentucky 1% 94% 5% 100%

Louisiana 1% 99% 0% 100%

Maine 2% 98% 0% 100%

Maryland 2% 98% 0% 100%

Massachusetts 23% 54% 22% 100%

Michigan 4% 96% 0% 100%

Minnesota 4% 96% 0% 100%

Mississippi 0% 100% 0% 100%

Missouri 2% 96% 2% 100%

Montana 4% 97% 0% 100%

Nebraska 8% 92% 0% 100%Nevada 20% 80% 0% 100%

New Hampshire 1% 0% 99% 100%

New Jersey 21% 68% 11% 100%

New Mexico 72% 28% 0% 100%

New York 14% 80% 6% 100%

North Carolina 5% 95% 0% 100%

North Dakota 3% 97% 0% 100%

Northern Mariana Islands 0% 100% 0% 100%

Ohio 3% 97% 0% 100%

Oklahoma 4% 96% 0% 100%

Oregon 16% 84% 0% 100%

Pennsylvania 4% 96% 0% 100%

Puerto RicoRhode Island 21% 79% 0% 100%

South Carolina 0% 100% 0% 100%

South Dakota 3% 97% 0% 100%

Tennessee 0% 100% 0% 100%

Texas 42% 58% 0% 100%

Utah 13% 87% 0% 100%

Vermont 0% 100% 0% 100%

Virgin Islands

Virginia 7% 93% 0% 100%

- - - -

- - - -



Washington 17% 83% 0% 100%

West Virginia 1% 99% 0% 100%

Wisconsin 4% 96% 0% 100%

Wyoming 12% 88% 0% 100%

National 16% 82% 2% 100%

Notes applicable to this report: Data as of: 27-SEP-2004



7. The Invalid/Not Reported category includes children where anything other than a No (0) or Yes (1) was in the Ethnicity field.

2. All percentages are based on "adjusted" numbers of families and children unless otherwise indicated. These "adjusted" numbers representthe number funded through CCDF only. The "adjusted" number is the raw or "unadjusted" number reported by the State multiplied by thepooling 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 theACF-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 childrecords reported each month were directly counted. However, for States that only submit samples, the ratio of children-to-families wasdetermined each month from the samples and then multiplied by the reported number of families to obtain an estimate of the unadjustednumber of children served each month. The unadjusted average number of families and children were obtained from the monthly numbers inthe Federal Fiscal Year (FFY). 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.

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 notappear to add up to exactly 100% because of rounding.

6. Connecticut does not report ACF-801 data on all or nearly all children served by contracted centers. Wisconsin has been reporting somechildren that are authorized for care but do not receive care. Nebraska has been reporting child records for some children that do not receive asubsidy if other children in the same family are receiving a subsidy. Alaska's reported population does not accurately reflect the populationserved 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.

8. Several States including Washington are still reporting ethnicity (Latino/Hispanic) as a race rather than as an ethnicity in accordance with thePre-FFY 2000 Technical Bulletin 3 standard. In many of these instances if a child is designated as Latino, no race is designated.




Average Monthly Percentage of Children In Child Care By Age Group and Care Type (FFY 2002)Age Group Child's Home Family Home Group Home Center Total

Infants (0 to <1 yr) 8% 37% 5% 50% 100%

Toddlers (1 yr to <3 yrs) 6% 32% 5% 58% 100%

Preschool (3 yrs to <6 yrs) 5% 24% 4% 66% 100%School Age (6 yrs to <13 yrs) 11% 33% 4% 52% 100%

13 years and older 18% 49% 4% 29% 100%

All Ages 8% 30% 4% 58% 100%Notes applicable to this report: Data as of: 27-SEP-2004



2. All percentages are based on the "adjusted" numbers of families and children unless otherwise indicated. These "adjusted" numbersrepresent the number funded through CCDF only. The "adjusted" number is the raw or "unadjusted" number reported by the State multiplied bythe 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 tothe 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 childrecords reported each month were directly counted. However, for States that only submit samples, the ratio of children-to-families wasdetermined each month from the samples and then multiplied by the reported number of families to obtain an estimate of the unadjustednumber 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). 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.

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 notappear to add up to exactly 100% because of rounding. The percentages shown are among valid data only. In other words invalid data wereexcluded before the percentages were calculated. Nationally 3.8% of the children were excluded from the above table because either their agewas invalid/not reported or one more setting elements of the child's setting record(s) were invalid or not reported.


7. Some children are reported to have multiple settings for the same month. If a child was in more than one of the above setting categorieswithin the same month, the child was counted in each setting and the denominator was the number of child-setting combination, which resultsin the total being exactly 100%.




Average Monthly Hours for Children In Care By Age Group and Care Type (FFY 2002)

Age Group Child's Home Family Home Group Home Center Weighted Averages

162 159 156 160 160

165 162 163 167 165

164 163 166 168 166164 163 165 166 166

161 162 163 162 162

154 147 146 142 144

138 131 115 109 120

126 128 121 99 119

149 149 147 145 147Notes applicable to this report: Data as of: 27-SEP-2004


0 to < 1 yr

1 to < 2 yrs

2 to < 3 yrs 3 to < 4 yrs

4 to < 5 yrs

5 to < 6 yrs

6 to < 13 yrs

13+ yrs

National

2. Average hours per month were based on sums of hours per month in categories divided by counts of children incategories as further defined below.

3. All counts are "adjusted" numbers of families and children unless otherwise indicated. These "adjusted" numbers represent thenumber 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 notapplicable to the ACF-801. This report takes all these factors into consideration in calculating the "adjusted" numbers or percentages.

4. 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 estimateof the unadjusted number of children served each month. The unadjusted average number of families and children were obtainedfrom the monthly numbers in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY).

5. At the time of publication, the following States/Territories have not yet reported ACF-801 for FFY 2002: Puerto Rico andVirgin Islands.

6. Connecticut does not report ACF-801 data on all or nearly all children served by contracted centers. Wisconsin has beenreporting some children that are authorized for care but do not receive care. Nebraska has been reporting child records for somechildren 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 Alaskadoes not report any children in foster care or families headed by a child.

7. Nationally 3.8% of the children were excluded from the above table because either their age was invalid/not reported or one or more setting elements of a child's setting record was invalid or not reported.

8. For children served by multiple providers, the child's count is proportioned based on the ratio of the monthly hours with eachprovider divided by the monthly total hours of service. The average hours and payments for each State-month combination arebased on the sum of hours in each category divided by the sum of proportional counts in each category. The State's annual resultsare determined by calculating a weighted average of the monthly results where the weight was the "adjusted" number of childrenserved in each month. The national results shown above represent a weighted average of the State's fiscal annual results where theweight for each State is the average monthly "adjusted" number of children served in each State for the fiscal year.

9. Some States have been reporting the maximum number of hours authorized rather than the actual number of hoursservice provided.




Average Monthly Expenditures for Children In Care By Age Group and Care Type (FFY 2002)

Age Group Child's Home Family Home Group Home Center Weighted Averages$282 $345 $444 $415 $380

$291 $363 $433 $423 $394

$283 $359 $438 $407 $387

$273 $341 $425 $399 $379

$266 $333 $419 $402 $381

$263 $309 $393 $367 $346

$233 $275 $334 $284 $277

$218 $291 $297 $291 $278

National $253 $316 $397 $365 $342Notes applicable to this report: Data as of: 27-SEP-2004


2. Average cost per month were based on sums of costs per month in categories divided by counts of children in categories as further defined below.


0 to < 1 yr

1 to < 2 yrs

2 to < 3 yrs

3 to < 4 yrs

4 to < 5 yrs

5 to < 6 yrs

6 to < 13 yrs

13+ yrs

3. All counts are "adjusted" numbers of families and children unless otherwise indicated. These "adjusted" numbers represent the number funded throughCCDF 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. Afew 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.

4. All states provide an actual unadjusted count of families served each month. For States reporting full population data, the number of child records repoeach month were directly counted. However, for States that only submit samples, the ratio of children-to-families was determined each month from thesamples and then multiplied by the reported number of families to obtain an estimate of the unadjusted number of children served each month. Theunadjusted average number of families and children were obtained from the monthly numbers in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY).

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 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 insame family are receiving a subsidy. Alaska's reported population does not accurately reflect the population served by CCDF due to sampling difficulties State is trying to resolve. Furthermore Alaska does not report any children in foster care or families headed by a child.

7. Nationally 3.8% of the children were excluded from the above table because either their age was invalid/not reported or one or more setting elements ochild's setting record was invalid or not reported.

8. For children served by multiple providers, the child's count is proportioned based on the ratio of the monthly hours with each provider divided by the

monthly total hours of service. The average hours and payments for each State-month combination are based on the sum of hours in each category dividby the sum of proportional counts in each category. The State's annual results are determined by calculating a weighted average of the monthly results wthe weight was the "adjusted" number of children served in each month. The national results shown above represent a weighted average of the State's fisannual results where the weight for each State is the average monthly "adjusted" number of children served in each State for the fiscal year.

9. The current Technical Bulletin 3 indicates that a payment over $1000 per month is considered above the Out of Range Standard and therefore isconsidered invalid. However, in some of the highest cost states there maybe some providers that actually charge more than $1000 for a month of full-timcare. The Child Care Bureau is currently planning on increasing this Out of Range Standard to $2000 effective October 1, 2006.




Average Monthly Percent of Families Receiving TANF (FFY 2002)

State TANF (Yes) TANF (NO) Invalid/Not Reported Total

Alabama 7% 93% 0% 100%

Alaska 13% 87% 0% 100%

American Samoa 0% 100% 0% 100%

Arizona 19% 81% 0% 100%Arkansas 41% 59% 0% 100%

California 16% 84% 0% 100%

Colorado 18% 82% 0% 100%

Connecticut 18% 82% 0% 100%

Delaware 12% 88% 0% 100%

District of Columbia 15% 85% 0% 100%

Florida 14% 84% 2% 100%

Georgia 15% 86% 0% 100%

Guam 25% 75% 0% 100%

Hawaii 26% 74% 0% 100%

Idaho 2% 98% 0% 100%

Illinois 12% 88% 0% 100%

Indiana 22% 78% 0% 100%

Iowa 46% 54% 0% 100%

Kansas 8% 91% 0% 100%

Kentucky 3% 97% 0% 100%

Louisiana 15% 83% 3% 100%

Maine 6% 95% 0% 100%

Maryland 11% 89% 0% 100%

Massachusetts 15% 85% 0% 100%

Michigan 19% 81% 0% 100%

Minnesota 0% 100% 0% 100%

Mississippi 0% 100% 0% 100%

Missouri 25% 75% 0% 100%

Montana 14% 86% 0% 100%Nebraska 25% 75% 0% 100%

Nevada 29% 71% 0% 100%

New Hampshire 0% 0% 100% 100%

New Jersey 13% 87% 0% 100%

New Mexico 19% 81% 0% 100%

New York 22% 78% 0% 100%

North Carolina 8% 92% 0% 100%

North Dakota 14% 86% 0% 100%

Northern Mariana Island 4% 96% 0% 100%

Ohio 18% 82% 0% 100%

Oklahoma 17% 83% 0% 100%

Oregon 31% 69% 0% 100%

Pennsylvania 8% 92% 0% 100%

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island 16% 84% 0% 100%

South Carolina 23% 77% 0% 100%

South Dakota 7% 93% 0% 100%

Tennessee 55% 45% 0% 100%

Texas 12% 87% 0% 100%

Utah 7% 93% 0% 100%

Vermont 14% 86% 0% 100%

Virgin Islands

- - - -

- - - -



Virginia 28% 72% 0% 100%

Washington 22% 78% 0% 100%

West Virginia 11% 89% 0% 100%

Wisconsin 9% 91% 0% 100%

Wyoming

National 17% 82% 1% 100%Notes applicable to this report: Data as of: 27-SEP-2004

1. The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FFY 2002


- - - -

2. These percentages were based on the "adjusted" numbers of families and children unless otherwise indicated. These "adjusted" numbersrepresent the number funded through CCDF only. The "adjusted" number is the raw or "unadjusted" number reported by the State multiplied bythe 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 tothe 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 childrecords reported each month were directly counted. However, for States that only submit samples, the ratio of children-to-families wasdetermined 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 theFederal Fiscal Year (FFY). National percentages are based on the "adjusted" national numbers unless otherwise indicated. In other words, thenational 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.

4. A "0%" indication often means the value is less than 0.5% rather than actually


7. The percentage shown as "Yes" is the number reported as "Yes" divided by the families that answered "Yes" or "No", or an invalid/notreported response excluding families that were in protective services. States with few or no valid TANF data include Minnesota, New Hampshireand Wyoming. Wyoming's software had reversed the responses for TANF data. Based on a reversed result, it is estimated that 11% of thefamilies in Wyoming that receive subsidized child care also received TANF. Minnesota estimates that 35% of families receiving subsidized childcare also receive TANF. Minnesota and Wyoming data were included in the National Percentage calculation.




Average Monthly Mean Family Co-payment as a Percent of Family Income (FFY 2002)

State/Territories

Alabama 6% 12% 11%

Alaska 6% 9% 9%

American Samoa 98% - -

Arizona 10% 5% 4%

Arkansas 77% 9% 1%

California 72% 3% 1%

Colorado 7% 9% 8%

Connecticut 15% 5% 4%

Delaware 15% 9% 7%

District of Columbia 16% 5% 4%

Florida 2% 6% 5%

Georgia 56% 4% 1%

Guam 2% 13% 12%

Hawaii 55% 4% 1%Idaho 0% 6% 6%

Illinois 2% 6% 6%

Indiana 66% 5% 2%

Iowa 59% 6% 2%

Kansas 17% 7% 5%

Kentucky 28% 7% 5%

Louisiana 40% 6% 3%

Maine 2% 7% 7%

Maryland 17% 5% 4%

Massachusetts 30% 8% 5%

Michigan 22% 5% 4%

Minnesota 20% 4% 3%Mississippi 0% 2% 2%

Missouri 21% 5% 4%

Montana 2% 4% 4%

Nebraska 41% 10% 4%

Nevada 47% 11% 5%

New Hampshire 55% 0% 0%

New Jersey 18% 8% 6%

New Mexico 21% 5% 4%

New York 28% 5% 4%

North Carolina 7% 8% 8%

North Dakota 5% 11% 11%

Northern Mariana Islands 1% 9% 9%

Ohio 3% 5% 5%

Oklahoma 36% 9% 4%

Oregon 9% 8% 7%

Pennsylvania 4% 7% 6%

Puerto Rico - - -

Rhode Island 27% 5% 3%

South Carolina 16% 3% 2%

South Dakota 52% 9% 3%

Tennessee 54% 1% 1%

Texas 7% 9% 8%

Percent of Familieswith $0 CoPay

(among those withIncome>$0)

Mean CoPay/Incomein Percent

(Excluding Those With$0 CoPay)

Mean CoPay/Incomein Percent

(Including Those With$0 CoPay)



Utah 12% 5% 4%

Vermont 32% 6% 4%

Virgin Islands - - -

Virginia 26% 10% 7%

Washington 39% 5% 2%

West Virginia 12% 4% 4%

Wisconsin 3% 6% 6%

Wyoming 1% 5% 5%

National Mean (Weighted 26% 6% 4%Notes applicable to this report: Data as of: 27-SEP-2004

1. The source for this table is ACF-801 data for FY 2002.

4. A "0%" indication often means the value is less than 0.5% rather than actually zero.

2. Percentages were based on "adjusted" numbers of families and children unless otherwise indicated. These "adjusted" numbersrepresent the number funded through CCDF only. The "adjusted" number is the raw or "unadjusted" number reported by the Statemultiplied 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 fromthe monthly numbers in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY).

5. At the time of publication, the following States/Territories have not yet reported ACF-801 for FFY 2002: Puerto Rico and VirginIslands. The data from American Samoa were not considered sufficiently reliable in these measures to report.

6. Connecticut does not report ACF-801 data on all or nearly all children served by contracted centers. Wisconsin has been reportingsome children that are authorized for care but do not receive care. Nebraska has been reporting child records for some children thatdo not receive a subsidy if other children in the same family are receiving a subsidy. Alaska's reported population does notaccurately reflect the population served by CCDF due to sampling difficulties the State is trying to resolve. Furthermore Alaska doesnot report any children in foster care or families headed by a child.

7. The "Mean CoPay/Income" columns exclude families with zero income because dividing by zero is undefined. Families headed bya child or in protective services were also excluded from this table.

8. The National weighted values were determined by multiplying each State's average co-payment/income percentage by theadjusted number of families in each State, summing across the States and then dividing by the adjusted number of families served for the Nation.

Documents

Health and Human Services: 2002 final data