FFY 2000 CCDF Data Tables and Charts |
| Index:
Cover page | List of
Tables and Charts | 1-Children Served
| 2-Type of Payment | 3-Care
by Type | 4-Regulated vs. Non-Regulated
| 5-Relative Care | 6-Setting Detail
| 7-Provider Summary | 8-Consumer
Education | Reason for Care Chart
| Ages Chart
The entire collection of tables and charts is available
in Excel document. |
|
Child Care and Development Fund Of Children in Settings Legally Operating Without Regulation, Percent Served by Relatives vs. Non-Relatives (FFY 2000) |
| State | Relative | Non-Relative |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 28% | 72% |
| Alaska | 31% | 69% |
| American Samoa | - | - |
| Arizona | 100% | 0% |
| Arkansas | - | - |
| California | 63% | 37% |
| Colorado | 44% | 56% |
| Connecticut | 73% | 27% |
| Delaware | 45% | 55% |
| District of Columbia | 73% | 27% |
| Florida | 16% | 84% |
| Georgia | 22% | 78% |
| Guam | 65% | 35% |
| Hawaii | 60% | 40% |
| Idaho | 51% | 49% |
| Illinois | 56% | 44% |
| Indiana | 34% | 66% |
| Iowa | 26% | 74% |
| Kansas | 77% | 23% |
| Kentucky | 62% | 38% |
| Louisiana | 20% | 80% |
| Maine | 33% | 67% |
| Maryland | 80% | 20% |
| Massachusetts | 58% | 42% |
| Michigan | 75% | 25% |
| Minnesota | 34% | 66% |
| Mississippi | 65% | 35% |
| Missouri | 25% | 75% |
| Montana | 10% | 90% |
| Nebraska | 0% | 100% |
| Nevada | 9% | 91% |
| New Hampshire | - | - |
| New Jersey | 33% | 67% |
| New Mexico | 67% | 33% |
| New York | 40% | 60% |
| North Carolina | 80% | 20% |
| North Dakota | 100% | 0% |
| Northern Mariana Islands | - | - |
| Ohio | - | - |
| Oklahoma | - | - |
| Oregon | 25% | 75% |
| Pennsylvania | 26% | 74% |
| Puerto Rico | 51% | 49% |
| Rhode Island | 74% | 26% |
| South Carolina | 1% | 99% |
| South Dakota | 74% | 26% |
| Tennessee | 18% | 82% |
| Texas | 100% | 0% |
| Utah | 45% | 55% |
| Vermont | 12% | 88% |
| Virgin Islands | 44% | 56% |
| Virginia | 73% | 27% |
| Washington | 68% | 32% |
| West Virginia | 80% | 20% |
| Wisconsin | - | - |
| Wyoming | 49% | 51% |
| National | 50% | 50% |
Notes:
| 1. | The source of this table is ACF-800 data for FFY 2000. |
| 2. | American Samoa, Arkansas, Northern Marianas, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin did not report having children served in settings legally operating without regulation. |
| 3. | New Hampshire did not report the number of children by setting type. |
| 4. | A "0%" indication often means the value is less than 0.5% rather than actually zero. |
| 5. | In a few instances, the sum of the categories may not appear to add up to exactly 100% because of rounding. |
 |
| Index: Cover page | List of Tables and Charts | 1-Children Served | 2-Type of Payment | 3-Care by Type | 4-Regulated vs. Non-Regulated | 5-Relative Care | 6-Setting Detail | 7-Provider Summary | 8-Consumer Education | Reason for Care Chart | Ages Chart |