Eligibility for CCDF-Funded Child Care Subsidies under the October 1999 Program Rules: Results from the TRIM3 Microsimulation Model

03/01/2002

Eligibility for CCDF-Funded Child Care Subsidies Under the October 1999 Program Rules: Results from the TRIM3 Microsimulation Model

Prepared by: Helen Oliver, Katherin Ross Phillips, Linda Giannarelli, and An-Lon Chen Urban Institute

June 2002

This report is available on the Internet at:http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/05/elig-ccsub/

Printer Friendly version of the report (in PDF format)

This work was conducted under funding from theDepartment of Health and Human Services,Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, contract number 100-97-0036.

Contents

Introduction

This paper reports estimates of the numbers of families and children who may be eligible for child care subsidies under the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). The estimates are produced by the Urban Institutes TRIM3 model (the Transfer Income Model, version 3). By eligible we mean that a family would technically qualify for subsidies, if that family chose to apply for subsidies. An eligible family may or may not want or need subsidies. Included are estimates of families and children eligible under state rules in effect as of October 1999. This paper also shows the number of families and children who are under the maximum federal standard of 85 percent of state median income. The paper explores the estimation methodology and also presents detailed national and state-level estimates.

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), authorized by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, PL 104-193, assists low-income families, families receiving temporary public assistance, and those transitioning from public assistance in obtaining child care so they can work or attend training/education.(1) Under the CCDF, states receive grants from the federal government to operate child care subsidy programs.(2) While other child care subsidies are paid for by federal TANF funds and by state, local, and private monies, the CCDF is the single largest source of funding for child care subsidies in many states.(3)

Each state determines how its CCDF program will operate, within the overall guidelines in the federal regulations. These guidelines stipulate three basic criteria for eligibility: childs age, family income, and parent work status. Typically, a child must be under 13 years old to be eligible. However, children with certain special needs may be eligible up to 19 years old. Family income must not exceed 85 percent of the states median for a family of the same size. Parents must be working or attending a job training or educational program. Within these parameters, each state establishes specific income thresholds and other rules that define who is legally eligible in the state. The states are required to report these rules in their biennial CCDF operating plans, submitted to the federal government by October of each odd-numbered year.

To help understand the potential reach of the CCDF program, as well as to assess possible changes in the system and the impact of variations in state rules, the Urban Institute developed a model under funding from the Department of Health and Human Services to estimate the number of children and families eligible for CCDF subsidies. While this model can estimate eligibility for the program under different sets of rules, it does not attempt to measure need for subsidies. Whether or not a family needs a subsidy, or any type of non-parental child care for that matter, depends on the alternatives for care available to the family.

This paper reports CCDF estimates from the Urban Institutes TRIM3 model (the Transfer Income Model, version 3). Included are two sets of estimates as of October 1999.(4) One set uses the financial and demographic eligibility criteria that states delineate in their state plans. This set of state rules estimates provides a measure of the number of children and families eligible for CCDF subsidies as the program was implemented by the states in October 1999. The other set is based on the federal guidelines, described above. This set of federal maximum estimates provides a benchmark of the number of children and families who are below 85 percent of state median income, the maximum income threshold allowed under federal law.

TRIM3 estimates that 9.7 million children and 5.8 million families are eligible for CCDF subsidies under October 1999 state rules. The model also shows that 15.7 million children and 9.5 million families are estimated to be below the federal maximum income standard. The difference between these two sets of estimates reflects the fact that many states establish more restrictive eligibility rules than those allowed by the federal law. Most notably, many states set income eligibility thresholds below 85 percent of state median income.

The estimates can be examined for each state and, at the national level, for families and children with different demographic characteristics. For example, 4.4 million children under age six and 5.2 million children ages six through twelve are eligible for CCDF-funded child care subsidies under state rules. Forty-two percent of all children eligible for subsidies under state rules have annual family incomes below poverty. Furthermore, roughly 0.6 million eligible families and 1 million eligible children are current TANF recipients. The number of estimated eligible children and families varies widely by state.

The remainder of this paper explores the estimation methodology and the subsequent results in more detail. The next section discusses the fundamentals of the TRIM3 model and defines the parameters for the CCDF subsidy estimation. The third section describes the national and state level estimates that are presented in the attached tables. The paper concludes with a final discussion of the distinction between estimate of eligibility and estimates of child care need.

[ Go to Contents ]

Methodology

TRIM3 is a comprehensive model of tax, transfer, and health programs affecting the U.S. population.(5) This section provides an overview of TRIM3 followed by a detailed discussion of how TRIM3 models eligibility for child care subsidies, a description of the input data used for these simulations, and information on how to interpret the estimates.

Overview of TRIM3

As a microsimulation model, TRIM3 uses survey data on individuals, families, and households to simulate the effects of major government programs. The TRIM3 computer program applies the rules of the particular social program being simulated to each household in the microdata input file. The model follows program rules as closely as possible given the limitations of the available data and policy information.

TRIM3s input file is a slightly modified version of each years March Current Population Survey (CPS). The March CPS samples about 55,000 households, and is nationally representative of the civilian non-institutionalized population of the United States. The survey is used extensively for analysis of the demographic and economic characteristics of the population. For example, it is the source of the official statistics on the countrys poverty rate.

From a substantive perspective, the main modification made to the CPS prior to its use in TRIM3 simulations is the allocation of certain annual variables across the months of the year.(6) The CPS only asks about annual income amounts. However, to simulate programs that operate

on a monthly basis, TRIM3 needs monthly income amounts and monthly information on labor force activity. TRIM3 allocates reported annual earnings and reported labor force activity in a manner consistent with each individuals reported annual labor force participation and consistent with actual trends in employment and unemployment across the months of the year. Because TRIM3 models government programs on a monthly basis, it is not possible to reproduce its results using unadjusted annual CPS data.

TRIM3 simulation results can be examined for the entire population, for subgroups of the population, and for states. When state-specific estimates are needed, TRIM3 projects may use three consecutive years of CPS data and average the resulting estimates in order to reduce the margin of error associated with each estimate. That strategy was used for this research, and is discussed further below.

TRIM3S Child Care Eligibility Modeling

One of TRIM3s modules estimates eligibility for CCDF-funded child care subsidies. The eligibility estimates are intended to assist researchers and policymakers in understanding the potential reach of the CCDF program. In addition, the eligibility estimates will serve as a basis for identifying the recipients of subsidies in the TRIM-CPS data, facilitating other TRIM analyses.

To develop the CCDF eligibility estimates, TRIM3 examines each household in the input data to determine whether the family(ies) and child(ren) in that household are eligible for CCDF-funded subsidies. A family or child is deemed eligible if it meets all the necessary criteria based on (1) the activities of the family head (and spouse); (2) the ages of the children; and, (3) the familys income.

TRIM3 can model CCDF eligibility under any specified set of program rules. As noted in the introduction, this project models eligibility under two sets of program rules. To simulate state rules eligibility, the model uses the actual income thresholds and other rules defined in each states October 1999 CCDF plan.(7) To derive the federal maximum estimates, the model sets the income eligibility thresholds at 85 percent of state median income (the maximum allowed by federal law), and uses the same requirements for head/spouse activity status and childrens ages across all states. Below, we describe the sequential process by which TRIM3 calculates eligibility, and we detail the program rules that define each simulation.

Units of Analysis

CCDF eligibility estimates are provided for both children and families, but the model determines eligibility based on resources measured at the family level.(8) Within a family, some children may be eligible for subsidies while others are not, depending on their age and disability status. A family with at least one eligible child is considered an eligible family, even if all of the children in the family are not eligible for subsidies.

Family size is an important variable used to determine whether a family is financially eligible for CCDF subsidies for both the state rules and the federal maximum simulations. All members of the family are included for purposes of calculating family size, including older children and relatives other than the head and spouse. TRIM3 considers children who live with caretakers who are not their parents (for example foster children or children living with grandparents) as members of their non-parent caretakers family.(9)

Time period

The state rules and the federal maximum simulations both determine CCDF eligibility on a monthly basis.(10) For each month of the year a child or family is eligible only if it meets all of the eligibility criteria in that month. As a result, TRIM3 may designate a family with relatively high annual income as eligible for child care subsidies in some months, if monthly income is low during one or more months of the year. Conversely, TRIM3 may designate a family with low annual income as ineligible for subsidies in months when income is relatively high.

Eligibility criteria for the family head and spouse

To be eligible for CCDF-funded subsidies, TRIM3 requires that both the head of the family and the spouse (if there is a spouse present) are either employed or in school.(11) The state rules simulation and the federal maximum simulation use different definitions of working. In the simulation modeling the states actual program rules, the definition of working is established by definitions in the state CCDF plans. In some states, a person must work at least a minimum number of hours per week (e.g., 20 hours) to be eligible for CCDF-funded subsidies. Other states do not require families to meet an hours requirement to be eligible for subsidies (or do not state such a requirement in their state plan). The minimum hours requirement for each state according to the October 1999 CCDF plans is listed in Appendix Table 1. In the federal maximum simulation, TRIM3 submits all family heads and spouses to the same definition of work: the presence of any earnings during the month.

The state rules and federal maximum simulations use the same definition of being in school, based on the limited information reported in the CPS interview. If a person does not work the entire calendar year, the CPS asks why not; and if a person works for less than the entire year, the CPS asks what s/he was doing the remainder of the year. If the person responds that she was in school, then TRIM3 allocates student status to that person for some portion of the calendar year.(12)

Eligibility criteria for children

In both the state rules simulation and the federal maximum simulation, the maximum age at which a non-special needs child is eligible for CCDF-funded subsidies is 12. However, the two sets of program rules vary on the maximum age at which children with special needs are eligible for subsidies. In the state rules simulation, TRIM3 uses information from the state CCDF plans to determine the maximum age at which a special needs child may be eligible for subsidies.(13) Some states limit eligibility for these children to those age 12 or younger, while others extend eligibility through the teen years up to age 19. Appendix Table 2 lists the maximum ages recorded in the October 1999 state plans. Under the federal maximum simulation, regardless of the familys state of residence, a special needs child is assumed to be eligible for CCDF subsidies through the age of 18.

Due to data limitations, the only type of special needs child that TRIM3s child care module captures is one who is disabled, and only if the child receives Supplemental Security Income (SSI).(14) To the extent that there are children who are considered special needs for CCDF purposes who do not receive SSI, TRIM3 will undercount the number of eligible special needs children in both the federal maximum and the state rules simulations. For the remainder of this paper, we refer to this subgroup of SSI-receiving special needs children as disabled.

Income eligibility criteria

To be eligible for CCDF-funded subsidies in a particular month, a family must have monthly income below the threshold for that familys size and state of residence. TRIM3 compares the familys monthly income to the appropriate income threshold. As discussed above, the family size is the total number of people in the family, with subfamilies treated as separate families.

Monthly family income is measured differently in the state rules and federal maximum simulations. For the federal maximum simulation, family income comprises the total cash income of the head and spouse, plus the SSI income of eligible children.(15) For the state rules simulation, TRIM3 captures some of the variation in definitions of income used by the states, as indicated in their state plans. For example, some state plans specify that the state does not count certain types of income  such as SSI or general assistance income  in their determination of CCDF eligibility. Furthermore, some state plans explicitly disregard a portion of earned income. These variations in income definition (according to the October 1999 CCDF plans) are listed in Appendix Table 3.

In addition to using different definitions of family income, the state rules and federal maximum simulations use different income thresholds. The state rules simulation uses the income thresholds that are contained in each state plan.(16) In some states, the thresholds vary by whether a family is newly applying for eligibility or already eligible for subsidies. If a states thresholds vary by initial vs. continuing eligibility, and the family is simulated as eligible for CCDF in the prior month, then the continuing eligibility limits are used for the current month; otherwise, the initial eligibility limits are used. A handful of states allow families with disabled children to have higher initial or continuing eligibility limits. Each states initial eligibility limits for non-disabled children as of October 1999 are listed in Appendix Table 4. Appendix Table 5 lists each states continuing eligibility limit, or disabled eligibility limit where applicable. Note that the majority of states have the same limits for both initial and continuing eligibility for all children.

The federal maximum income thresholds are set at 85 percent of state median income (SMI) for family sizes ranging from one person to 10 people.(17)Appendix Table 6 lists the 85 percent SMI income thresholds used in the federal maximum simulation for all states and all family sizes. Comparing Appendix Tables 4 and 5 with Appendix Table 6, note that the state rules thresholds are often substantially lower than 85 percent of SMI.

Input Data for the 1999 Eligibility Estimates

To improve the precision of the state-level eligibility estimates and estimates for demographic sub-groups of the national population, TRIM3 uses three years of CPS data to estimate CCDF eligibility. For the results presented in this paper, the three input files are based on the March 1998, March 1999, and March 2000 CPS files, with income data from calendar years 1997, 1998, and 1999. The same rules are applied to each year of data, except the income limits used in the 1999 run are deflated from 1999 to either 1998 or 1997 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The eligibility estimates in the following tables are calculated by taking a simple average of the results from the three individual runs.(18) Note that by averaging eligibility estimates over the three years of data, we may misestimate the number of families and children who were eligible for CCDF in October 1999, due to changes in demographic and economic circumstances over the period.

Interpreting the Estimates

The eligibility counts presented in the tables are our best estimates of CCDF eligibility. However, we also report the margin of error  or confidence interval  associated with the estimates in tables 1 through 4. The confidence interval is the range inside which the true number is likely to fall. In these tables, we show the 95-percent confidence interval for each estimate.(19) There is a 95 percent chance that the true number falls in the range defined by the 95-percent confidence interval. For example, in the state rules simulation, our best estimate of the number of eligible children aged 0 through 2 is 2.10 million (Table 3); but we can be 95 percent certain only that the number is between 1.96 and 2.24 million.

Using three years of CPS data produces smaller confidence intervals than would be the case with only one year of CPS data, due to the increased sample size. However, the confidence intervals around some of the estimates  particularly the estimates for the states with smaller populations  are sizable relative to the estimates themselves. For instance, while the point estimate for the number of children eligible under Maines own state rules is 56 thousand, the 95 percent confidence interval is 42 thousand to 70 thousand  plus or minus 18 percent of the point estimate. Ranges of this type are common for state-specific estimates generated from CPS data; nevertheless, readers should keep the confidence intervals in mind in interpreting the estimates.(20, 21)

[ Go to Contents ]

The Eligibility Estimates

Tables 1 through 6 present the TRIM3 estimates of CCDF eligibility as of October 1999. The tables disaggregate the nationwide estimates of children and families eligible for CCDF child care subsidies by state of residence and various demographic characteristics. Tables 1 through 4 juxtapose estimates of eligibility under October 1999 state rules and counts of children and families under federal maximum rules, with the odd-numbered tables counting children and the even-numbered counting families. Tables 5 and 6 provide a more detailed description of identified children, first under state rules (Table 5) and then under federal maximum rules (Table 6).

The tables show our estimates of eligibility in the average month of the year. For example, for a particular state and year we may estimate 100,000 children eligible in January, 105,000 in February, 102,000 in March, etc., and an average monthly number over the calendar year of 103,000. The numbers of children or families eligible in the average month will always be lower than estimates of those who are ever eligible during the calendar year.(22)

The remainder of this section explains the layout of the tables, defines the dimensions on which eligibility is broken down, and highlights some interesting findings from this analysis.

[ Go to Contents ]

State Level Estimates

Tables 1 and 2 list the estimates of eligible children and families in each state and the District of Columbia. Although there is a margin of error around each number, these are our best point estimates of the numbers of children and families eligible for CCDF-funded subsidies. The tables also include the 95 percent confidence interval associated with each estimate. As discussed above in the methodology section, the 95 percent confidence interval gives the range that we are 95 percent confident contains the actual number of eligible children/families. Note that the confidence intervals can be fairly large relative to the point estimates, especially for smaller states, making cross-state comparisons difficult.

The last row in each table displays the nationwide total estimates that were highlighted in the introduction. TRIM3 estimates that 9.7 million children are eligible for CCDF subsidies under the state rules in effect in October 1999 and 15.7 million children are potentially eligible under federal law. At the family level, 5.8 million families are eligible under October 1999 state rules, while 9.5 million families are potentially eligible.

[ Go to Contents ]

Estimates by Demographic Characteristics

Tables 3 and 4 display estimates of average monthly eligibility on the national level broken down by the demographic characteristics of children and families. Below, we first describe the contents of the tables, and then present the results.

Description of the Tables

The left side of each table presents eligibility estimates under October 1999 state rules, while the right side shows estimates using the maximums allowed under federal law. The 95 percent confidence intervals are also included in these tables, indicating the precision of the estimates for each demographic sub-category. The % of total columns for the state rules and federal maximum estimates can be used to compare, within each demographic category, the relative size of each class of eligible children or families.

Tables 3 and 4 count children and families according to six characteristics:

  • Age: This category separates eligibility estimates by the age of the child, or, in the family estimates, the age of the youngest child. Eligible children age 13 or older are only those that TRIM3 identifies as SSI recipients. However, estimates for this age group are not shown due to small sample sizes. The CPS does not capture changes in age across the year (or exact birthdays) so a child or family is in the same row for all months of eligibility.
  • Annual poverty status: Family income as a percentage of poverty is calculated by comparing the annual family income to the annual poverty threshold. In contrast to the narrow definition of the family that TRIM uses when determining eligibility, i.e. all subfamilies considered separately, this breakdown uses the broad definition of the family which includes related subfamilies as part of the households primary family. This definition is consistent with standard Census Bureau methodology for determining the poverty characteristics of the population. Note that a familys poverty status in the month(s) of eligibility may differ from the annual poverty status. For example, a family with annual income more than twice the poverty threshold may have much lower income in some months, and might be eligible for CCDF subsidies only in those months, but all of the familys months of eligibility would still be counted in the 200+ row. On the other hand, a family that only works for part of the year may have a low annual income that puts it in the poverty category, but it is only eligible in the months that the head is working and in those months its income is higher.
  • Monthly income level: Monthly income includes the total cash income of the family head and spouse, plus the SSI benefits of eligible children. The monthly income breaks in the table are based on annual incomes of $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, and $25,000.(23) Note, however, that family incomes can fluctuate over the months of the year, so having monthly income under $833 is not necessarily equivalent to having annual income under $10,000.
  • Monthly TANF receipt: A family or child is classified by whether TANF is received by anyone in the family during the month. The variable used to determine TANF receipt is a TRIM-simulated variable that corrects for the under-reporting of TANF in the CPS data.(24) If a family receives TANF for part of the year but not the entire year, the family and children would be counted in the TANF row for CCDF-eligible months when TANF is received, and in the non-TANF row for CCDF-eligible months when TANF is not received.
  • Work status: Families and children are categorized by the work status of the head and spouse (if present) of the family during the month: half-time or more, or anything less than half-time. Half time is defined as 20 hours per week. If the family head is married, both the head and spouse must work at least half time to be counted in the >half time category. Adults are considered students only if they did not work at all that month. All students fall into the < half time category. If the work status of the head or spouse changes during the year, a family/child might fall into different categories in different months of eligibility.(25)
  • Marital status: Families and children are categorized by the marital status of the family head. The CPS does not capture changes in marital status during the year, so a family or child is in the same category for all months of eligibility.

Demographic Characteristics of Eligible Children

Age. The distributions of eligible children by age, shown in Table 3, are very similar across the two simulations. In the state rules simulation, 22 percent of the eligible children are under age 3, 23 percent are 3 through 5 years of age, and 54 percent are age 6 or older. The percentages are almost the same in the federal maximum simulation.(26) However, the percentages translate into different absolute numbers in the two simulations. For instance, there are an estimated 2.1 million eligible children under age 3 in the state rules simulation compared to 3.2 million in the federal maximum simulation.

Annual Poverty Status. The distribution of children by annual poverty status is quite different for the state rules simulation and the federal maximum simulation. Almost 4.1 million poor children are eligible for CCDF subsidies under state rules, slightly fewer than are counted under the federal maximum simulation. However, poor children represent 42 percent of the identified population under state rules, while they make up only 27 percent of the eligible population under the federal maximum simulation. Under state rules, an additional 4.5 million eligible children (47 percent of the eligible children) live in families with annual incomes between 100 percent and 200 percent of the poverty line. Only 1.1 million eligible children, or 11 percent of the state rules total, have annual family incomes over 200 percent of poverty. In contrast, 32 percent of the children under the federal maximum level have family incomes in excess of 200 percent of poverty. These results reflect the fact that many states use lower income thresholds than allowed by the federal regulations.

Monthly Income. The breakdown of eligible children by monthly family income also indicates that the maximum limits under federal law are more generous than the state rules. Under the federal maximum simulation, 48 percent of children in the average monthlive in families earning over $2084 in that month (or roughly $25,000 a year if earnings were stable over the months). The distribution of children among the other four categories is relatively even. Under state rules, the highest income category constitutes only 24 percent of the total population of eligible children. The lowest two income categories  income up to $833/month and $834 to $1250 per month  each contain about 21 percent of eligibles in the state rules simulation, compared to 13 percent in each category in the federal maximum simulation.

TANF Receipt, Parent Work Status, and Marital Status. The distribution of children by parent work status is very similar across the two simulations, with approximately 85 percent of children in families where the parents work at least half time. However, the distributions of eligible children by TANF receipt and by marital status differ between the two simulations.

In the state rules simulation, approximately 1.0 million of the children who are eligible for subsidies (11 percent of the total) are in families that receive TANF. The number of TANF children is only slightly higher in the federal maximum simulation, but in that simulation they comprise a smaller percentage of the total  about 7 percent. Almost all of the children in the federal maximum simulation but not in the state rules simulation are in families that do not receive TANF.

A larger share of eligible children reside in unmarried-parent families under the state rules (71 percent) than under the federal maximum simulation (57 percent). This is consistent with the generally lower incomes and higher poverty among those eligible under state rules as compared with the federal maximum rules.

Demographic Characteristics of Eligible Families

The demographic characteristics of families with CCDF-eligible children are largely consistent with those of the children themselves, and are shown in Table 4.

Age. The distribution of families by the age of the youngest child is very similar across the two simulations. In the state rules simulation, 32 percent of families have a child under age 3, 26 percent have a youngest child age 3, 4, or 5, and 41 percent have no child younger than 6. The comparable figures from the federal maximum simulation differ by no more than two percentage points from the state rules results.

Annual Poverty Status and Monthly Income. For each simulation, the distribution of families by annual poverty status is nearly identical to the distribution of children by poverty status. In the simulation of state rules, 41 percent of the eligible families are poor, 47 percent have incomes from 100 to 200 percent of poverty, and only 12 percent have income above 200 percent of poverty. In the simulation of the federal maximum regulations, 26 percent of families are poor on an annual basis, 41 percent have incomes between 100 and 200 percent of the poverty threshold, and 33 percent have income over 200 percent of poverty. The estimated number of poor families simulated to be eligible for CCDF subsidies is about the same in both simulations, at 2.4 million.

The distribution of monthly income among eligible families is also similar to that of eligible children. In each simulation, however, a higher percentage of families than children are in the two lowest monthly income category. For example, in the state rules simulation, 46 percent of eligible families earn less than $1,250 a month, a larger portion than the 42 percent of eligible children in families earning less than $1,250. These differences suggest that the eligible families with lower monthly incomes have fewer children, on average, than the eligible families with higher incomes.

TANF Receipt, Parent Work Status, and Marital Status. In each simulation, the distribution of eligible families by TANF receipt and by parent work status is very similar to the distribution of eligible children by those characteristics. In the state rules simulation, 11 percent of eligible families (0.6 million) receive TANF, and 84 percent (4.9 million) are headed by parents who work at least half time.

The distributions of eligible families by marital status differs somewhat from the comparable distributions for eligible children. In both simulations, the percentage of eligible families headed by a married couple is lower than the percentage of eligible children in married-couple families. For instance, in the state rules simulation, 25 percent of eligible families are headed by a married couple, whereas 29 percent of eligible children are in married-couple families. The differences suggest that the eligible married-couple families have more eligible children, on average, than the eligible families where the family head is not married.

[ Go to Contents ]

Cross Tabulation of Eligibility by Family Marital Status, Parental Work Status, and Age

Tables 5 and 6 are both child-level tables showing the distribution of eligibility for CCDF-funded subsidies looking at three characteristics at the same time: family marital status, parental work status, and age of the child.(27) The tables give a more nuanced picture of the composition of the eligible population than looking at the distribution by one characteristic at a time.

Description of the tables

Table 5 contains state rules estimates, while Table 6 contains estimates from the federal maximum simulation. The top panel in each table provides the estimate and the bottom panel expresses each cell as a percent of the total number of children estimated to be eligible for CCDF subsidies under the given set of rules. The left columns of each panel show the results for children living in families with a married head, while the right columns include the results for children living in families with an unmarried head.

The tables divide children into two age groups  under age 6 and aged 6 to 12  and exclude children over the age of 12. Teenagers are only eligible for CCDF subsidies if they are disabled; the relatively small population of disabled teens that could be identified with the TRIM-CPS data did not allow the kind of subbreaks shown in this table.

As in Tables 3 and 4, the tables define work hours by the lesser of the hours worked by the head of the family and the spouse if present. Here, however, hours of work are broken into three categories: 1-20 hours, 21-34 hours, and 35 hours or more. In addition, the tables separate children whose parents are students from other children. A child is in the student category if his/her single parent is a student or if at least one of his/her married parents is a student.

Results of the cross-tabulation

Under the state rules simulation, full time work is the most common for eligible children of all ages and in both marital status categories (Table 5). Of the 9.6 million children under the age of 13 who are eligible for subsidies, 6.3 million (66 percent) have parents who work full time. This figure includes 0.6 million children under six with married parents (7 percent of the total), and 2.1 million children under six with a single parent (22 percent of the total). A larger share of the eligible children of single parents have parents who work full-time than their counterparts in married families (71 percent versus 54 percent, percents not shown).

As previously seen in Table 3, children estimated to be eligible for subsidies under state rules are much more likely to be children of single parents than children under the federal maximum regulations. A comparison of the results in Tables 5 and 6 highlights this finding. The lower income thresholds implemented by the states reduce the size of the population of children with married parents by 58 percent (compare 2.8 million children in Table 5 to 6.8 million children in Table 6). In contrast, the estimated size of the eligible population of children with single parents under state rules is only 23 percent smaller than the population under federal maximum regulations (compare 6.8 million in Table 5 to 8.8 million in Table 6).

Approximately 33 percent of the children eligible under state rules are preschoolers with single parents, and more than one in five eligible children under state rules are preschoolers of a single parent who works full-time (Table 5). Across all ages and family marital statuses, the distribution of eligible children by parental work status remains fairly constant between the two simulations. The relative stability of this distribution is probably due to two counterbalancing forces. First, work and income are highly correlated, and lower income limits under the state rules simulation would typically create an eligible population with less work effort. However, many states impose minimum hours requirements, thus shifting the eligible population towards more work effort. In addition, working single parent families with only one parental earner are more likely to have lower incomes than working married parent families. Thus, the majority of the children eligible for CCDF subsidies under state rules have single parents, most of whom work full-time.

[ Go to Contents ]

Eligibility and Need

One important issue that must be considered when reviewing these estimates is that they are only estimates of eligibility for subsidies, not who needs subsidies, who receives subsidies, or the value of potential subsidies. Not all eligible families receive subsidies, either because they do not want or need assistance, they do not apply for benefits for some other reason, or they apply for subsidies but do not receive assistance due to limited subsidy availability and/or a limited supply of providers who will accept CCDF subsidies. Among those families who do receive subsidies, many are required to pay a co-payment, and therefore subsidized care does not always equal free care.

The relationship between eligibility for subsidies and need for subsidies is particularly complex. Some eligible families do not apply for benefits because they prefer other methods of managing child care expenses. Other parents who are currently not employed (and therefore not technically eligible for subsidies according to these estimates) might choose to work if they were aware of and could obtain a subsidy. However, the TRIM3 eligibility estimates do provide an important first step for analyzing the population targeted by the CCDF program.

Table 1 State-by-State Estimates of Children Identified in the Simulations
State Children Eligible under State Rules (October 1999) Children under Federal Maximum Thresholds
Number 95% conf (low-high) Number 95% conf (low-high)
Alabama 118,900 85,200 152,600 223,300 176,900 269,700
Alaska 48,200 39,800 56,600 44,200 36,100 52,300
Arizona 190,000 147,600 232,400 298,300 245,100 351,400
Arkansas 73,700 53,200 94,300 139,100 110,900 167,300
California 1,660,900 1,517,100 1,804,600 1,945,200 1,789,600 2,100,800
Colorado 105,700 75,300 136,200 211,500 168,100 255,000
Connecticut 109,800 77,100 142,500 216,300 170,300 262,300
Delaware 31,100 22,900 39,300 59,800 48,500 71,200
DC 22,900 16,900 29,000 31,000 24,100 38,000
Florida 374,700 315,100 434,300 769,600 684,300 855,000
Georgia 321,400 255,100 387,700 501,400 418,600 584,100
Hawaii 86,400 69,100 103,700 80,100 63,500 96,700
Idaho 45,900 34,900 56,800 76,000 62,000 90,000
Illinois 372,200 311,900 432,500 746,400 661,200 831,600
Indiana 116,700 77,000 156,400 324,600 258,300 390,900
Iowa 66,900 45,300 88,600 183,500 147,800 219,200
Kansas 98,600 73,800 123,300 149,500 119,000 180,100
Kentucky 99,700 69,800 129,600 174,700 135,200 214,200
Louisiana 221,200 176,200 266,200 255,900 207,500 304,400
Maine 55,600 41,500 69,700 55,300 41,300 69,400
Maryland 101,000 64,600 137,300 285,700 224,000 347,400
Massachusetts 195,500 156,000 234,900 324,800 274,100 375,600
Michigan 384,300 325,300 443,200 602,500 528,600 676,400
Minnesota 217,100 168,800 265,300 276,000 221,500 330,500
Mississippi 162,600 130,600 194,500 177,800 144,400 211,200
Missouri 121,000 80,800 161,200 304,000 240,300 367,800
Montana 37,900 29,300 46,500 59,700 48,900 70,500
Nebraska 74,500 56,900 92,000 128,000 105,000 151,000
Nevada 111,300 89,500 133,100 129,600 106,000 153,200
New Hampshire 32,400 21,400 43,300 72,600 56,200 89,000
New Jersey 137,600 104,200 171,000 412,500 355,000 470,000
New Mexico 125,200 103,100 147,200 127,200 105,000 149,500
New York 636,300 561,900 710,700 943,500 852,900 1,034,000
North Carolina 387,300 327,900 446,800 437,500 374,500 500,600
North Dakota 34,900 27,500 42,300 39,800 31,900 47,800
Ohio 349,700 290,600 408,700 623,100 544,500 701,700
Oklahoma 82,100 58,300 105,800 154,600 122,000 187,300
Oregon 114,600 83,800 145,500 206,900 165,400 248,300
Pennsylvania 438,200 374,000 502,500 638,500 561,200 715,700
Rhode Island 32,800 23,000 42,700 61,100 47,700 74,500
South Carolina 102,200 70,800 133,700 241,400 192,700 290,100
South Dakota 19,500 13,800 25,100 41,900 33,600 50,300
Tennessee 180,000 131,100 228,800 353,900 285,700 422,200
Texas 690,000 599,500 780,500 1,236,800 1,115,900 1,357,800
Utah 70,100 52,900 87,400 149,200 124,100 174,300
Vermont 26,000 19,200 32,700 31,200 23,800 38,700
Virginia 221,300 165,000 277,700 367,700 295,100 440,200
Washington 177,500 126,600 228,400 286,900 222,500 351,400
West Virginia 45,000 32,000 58,000 65,800 50,200 81,500
Wisconsin 132,100 93,100 171,100 353,200 289,200 417,100
Wyoming 16,000 11,700 20,400 32,900 26,700 39,100
Total 9,676,300 9,374,000 9,978,700 15,652,400 15,272,300 16,032,400
Notes:  The first column shows estimates for child care subsides funded by the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) under the income eligibility thresholds and other eligibility rules set by the states in their October 1999 state plans. The second column shows estimates if all states raised their income eligibility thresholds to 85% of their State Median Income, the maximum allowed under Federal law, and set uniform values for other eligibility rules.  Estimates are based on the Urban Institute's TRIM 3 microsimulation model, using three-year averages of data from the Current Population Survey (calendar years 1997-1999).
Table 2 State-by-State Estimates of Families Identified in the Simulations
State Families Eligible under State Rules (October 1999) Families under Federal Maximum Thresholds
Number 95% conf (low-high) Number 95% conf (low-high)
Alabama 72,500 55,200 89,700 142,800 118,400 167,100
Alaska 26,200 22,200 30,300 23,500 19,700 27,400
Arizona 112,700 91,200 134,100 177,800 150,800 204,700
Arkansas 44,700 34,200 55,200 82,900 68,700 97,200
California 1,003,800 930,400 1,077,100 1,160,000 1,081,100 1,238,900
Colorado 58,400 43,500 73,400 117,300 96,000 138,700
Connecticut 56,900 41,400 72,400 115,200 93,200 137,200
Delaware 15,600 11,800 19,400 33,600 28,000 39,200
DC 13,000 10,100 16,000 17,700 14,300 21,200
Florida 219,000 189,100 248,900 469,600 425,900 513,300
Georgia 205,400 170,800 240,000 312,500 269,700 355,300
Hawaii 52,000 43,100 60,800 48,900 40,300 57,400
Idaho 24,600 19,400 29,900 44,300 37,300 51,300
Illinois 219,700 189,400 250,100 435,900 393,200 478,600
Indiana 73,900 53,200 94,600 186,600 153,600 219,600
Iowa 43,400 32,000 54,800 109,600 91,400 127,700
Kansas 60,200 47,400 72,900 90,500 74,800 106,100
Kentucky 74,000 57,200 90,800 123,200 101,500 145,000
Louisiana 145,700 121,700 169,600 169,600 143,600 195,500
Maine 38,800 31,000 46,500 38,600 30,900 46,300
Maryland 65,200 45,900 84,400 181,600 149,300 213,900
Massachusetts 113,200 93,500 132,800 195,600 169,800 221,500
Michigan 221,200 191,900 250,500 353,100 316,000 390,200
Minnesota 117,400 94,100 140,700 148,700 122,400 174,900
Mississippi 119,400 101,400 137,300 131,100 112,200 149,900
Missouri 75,200 54,400 96,000 203,300 169,100 237,400
Montana 22,400 18,100 26,800 37,100 31,500 42,700
Nebraska 40,800 32,200 49,300 68,700 57,700 79,800
Nevada 60,800 50,200 71,400 71,200 59,700 82,600
New Hampshire 20,600 14,900 26,400 45,500 36,900 54,000
New Jersey 81,300 64,500 98,100 254,200 224,600 283,900
New Mexico 62,600 52,400 72,800 64,400 54,100 74,700
New York 379,200 341,600 416,800 570,600 524,400 616,700
North Carolina 248,400 217,200 279,700 283,100 249,800 316,400
North Dakota 20,600 16,900 24,400 23,500 19,500 27,500
Ohio 211,100 181,100 241,100 375,100 335,200 415,100
Oklahoma 55,800 42,900 68,600 96,100 79,200 113,000
Oregon 69,200 53,500 84,800 120,600 99,900 141,300
Pennsylvania 243,300 212,000 274,700 380,400 341,300 419,500
Rhode Island 19,400 14,500 24,400 36,500 29,700 43,300
South Carolina 64,200 47,800 80,700 163,900 137,600 190,200
South Dakota 12,500 9,500 15,500 27,100 22,700 31,600
Tennessee 109,400 84,500 134,400 228,400 192,500 264,300
Texas 419,100 372,900 465,400 770,100 707,400 832,700
Utah 45,400 36,300 54,500 84,300 71,900 96,700
Vermont 17,500 13,800 21,100 21,300 17,300 25,300
Virginia 134,300 105,500 163,100 229,300 191,600 267,000
Washington 110,900 84,500 137,300 187,100 153,000 221,200
West Virginia 29,300 22,400 36,200 45,900 37,300 54,500
Wisconsin 71,900 52,900 90,900 205,100 172,900 237,200
Wyoming 9,200 7,000 11,400 19,500 16,400 22,700
Total 5,831,200 5,676,900 5,985,500 9,522,400 9,327,200 9,717,700
Notes:  The first column shows estimates for child care subsides funded by the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) under the income eligibility thresholds and other eligibility rules set by the states in their October 1999 state plans. The second column shows estimates if all states raised their income eligibility thresholds to 85% of their State Median Income, the maximum allowed under Federal law, and set uniform values for other eligibility rules.  Estimates are based on the Urban Institute's TRIM 3 microsimulation model, using three-year averages of data from the Current Population Survey (calendar years 1997-1999).
Table 3 Demographic Characteristics of Children Identified in the Simulations (U.S. Total)
  State Rules (October 1999) Federal Maximums
Number 95% conf (low-high) % of Total Number 95% conf (low-high) % of Total
Age of Child
  0-2 2,101,000 1,958,000 2,244,000 21.7% 3,237,200 3,060,200 3,414,100 20.7%
  3 711,000 627,600 794,300 7.3% 1,143,300 1,037,500 1,249,000 7.3%
  4 771,300 684,500 858,100 8.0% 1,227,000 1,117,700 1,336,400 7.8%
  5 774,400 687,600 861,300 8.0% 1,265,500 1,154,600 1,376,300 8.1%
  6-12 5,247,900 5,023,400 5,472,400 54.2% 8,681,100 8,394,300 8,967,900 55.5%
  13+1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a
Annual Income Relative to the Poverty Line
  <100% 4,060,700 3,862,500 4,258,800 42.0% 4,220,200 4,018,300 4,422,200 27.0%
  100<200% 4,542,100 4,333,200 4,750,900 46.9% 6,384,700 6,137,900 6,631,400 40.8%
  200+ 1,073,600 971,100 1,176,100 11.1% 5,047,500 4,827,300 5,267,700 32.2%
Monthly Income2,3
  $0-$833 2,028,600 1,888,400 2,168,800 21.0% 2,091,800 1,949,500 2,234,200 13.4%
  $834-$1250 2,028,700 1,888,100 2,169,300 21.0% 2,077,100 1,934,800 2,219,300 13.3%
  $1251-$1667 1,828,400 1,694,800 1,962,000 18.9% 2,000,200 1,860,600 2,139,900 12.8%
  $1668-$2083 1,489,200 1,368,900 1,609,400 15.4% 1,985,000 1,846,300 2,123,600 12.7%
  $2084+ 2,301,500 2,152,000 2,450,900 23.8% 7,498,300 7,231,200 7,765,400 47.9%
TANF Receipt2
  receives 1,013,600 914,000 1,113,200 10.5% 1,061,800 959,900 1,163,700 6.8%
  does not receive 8,662,700 8,376,100 8,949,300 89.5% 14,590,600 14,222,900 14,958,200 93.2%
Parent work status2,4
  >half time5 8,226,600 7,947,000 8,506,200 85.0% 13,474,700 13,120,500 13,828,900 86.1%
  Student6 or <half time 1,449,700 1,331,000 1,568,500 15.0% 2,177,600 2,032,500 2,322,800 13.9%
Parent marital status4
  married 2,829,700 2,664,200 2,995,100 29.2% 6,780,400 6,526,200 7,034,700 43.3%
  unmarried 6,846,700 6,590,900 7,102,500 70.8% 8,871,900 8,582,000 9,161,900 56.7%
TOTAL CHILDREN 9,676,300 9,374,000 9,978,700   15,652,400 15,272,300 16,032,400  
Notes: See text for detailed definitions of demographic categories.  Subtotals may not sum to totals due to rounding.1 Estimates for disabled teenagers are not shown due to small sample sizes.2 These characteristics are based on monthly information, and could vary for the same family over a year.3 In 1999 dollars.  Note that the upper limits of the categories are equivalent to 1/12 of $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, and $25,000.4 A child's "parent" is defined as the family head, and spouse if present, regardless of his/her relationship to the child.5 The head works 20+ hours/week, and if a spouse is present, the spouse also works 20+ hours/week.6 A student reports attending school and has no earnings during the month.Source: Urban Institute's TRIM3 microsimulation model.
Table 4 Demographic Characteristics of Families Identified in the Simulations (U.S. Total)
  State Rules (October 1999) Federal Maximums
Number 95% conf (low-high) % of Total Number 95% conf (low-high) % of Total
Age of Youngest Child
  0-2 1,888,600 1,799,900 1,977,400 32.4% 2,908,400 2,798,600 3,018,100 30.5%
  3 500,200 454,400 545,900 8.6% 824,700 765,900 883,600 8.7%
  4 517,700 471,000 564,400 8.9% 804,200 746,100 862,400 8.4%
  5 480,300 435,400 525,200 8.2% 776,700 719,800 833,700 8.2%
  6-12 2,415,200 2,314,900 2,515,400 41.4% 4,167,900 4,036,900 4,299,000 43.8%
  13+1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Annual Income Relative to the Poverty Line
  <100% 2,373,700 2,274,200 2,473,100 40.7% 2,476,500 2,375,000 2,578,100 26.0%
  100<200% 2,746,200 2,639,500 2,852,900 47.1% 3,862,900 3,736,800 3,989,100 40.6%
  200+ 711,300 656,700 766,000 12.2% 3,182,900 3,068,100 3,297,800 33.4%
Monthly Income2,3
  $0-$833 1,400,600 1,324,100 1,477,000 24.0% 1,446,300 1,368,700 1,524,000 15.2%
  $834-$1250 1,287,500 1,214,100 1,360,900 22.1% 1,319,400 1,245,100 1,393,700 13.9%
  $1251-$1667 1,149,100 1,079,600 1,218,600 19.7% 1,312,200 1,238,100 1,386,400 13.8%
  $1668-$2083 861,500 801,400 921,600 14.8% 1,292,900 1,219,500 1,366,400 13.6%
  $2084+ 1,132,500 1,063,600 1,201,300 19.4% 4,151,500 4,020,700 4,282,300 43.6%
TANF Receipt2
  receives 613,900 563,200 664,700 10.5% 648,500 596,300 700,700 6.8%
  does not receive 5,217,300 5,071,100 5,363,500 89.5% 8,873,900 8,685,100 9,062,700 93.2%
Parent work status2,4
  >half time5 4,918,000 4,775,900 5,060,100 84.3% 8,220,900 8,038,800 8,402,900 86.3%
  Student6 or <half time 913,200 851,300 975,100 15.7% 1,301,600 1,227,800 1,375,400 13.7%
Parent marital status4
  married 1,444,400 1,366,800 1,522,000 24.8% 3,648,800 3,526,100 3,771,600 38.3%
  unmarried 4,386,800 4,252,400 4,521,200 75.2% 5,873,600 5,718,700 6,028,500 61.7%
TOTAL FAMILIES 5,831,200 5,676,900 5,985,500   9,522,400 9,327,200 9,717,700  
Notes: See text for detailed definitions of demographic categories. Subtotals may not sum to totals due to rounding.1 Estimates for disabled teenagers are not shown due to small sample sizes.2 These characteristics are based on monthly information, and could vary for the same family over a year.3 In 1999 dollars.  Note that the upper limits of the categories are equivalent to 1/12 of $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, and $25,000.4 A child's "parent" is defined as the family head, and spouse if present, regardless of his/her relationship to the child.5 The head works 20+ hours/week, and if a spouse is present, the spouse also works 20+ hours/week.6 A student reports attending school and has no earnings during the month.Source: Urban Institute's TRIM3 microsimulation model.
Table 5 Average Monthly Estimates of Children Under Age 13 Identified in the Simulations1 By Family Marital Status, Parental Work Status, and Child's Age State Rules (October 1999)
Number
  Married Family Head Single Family Head All
Weekly Hours of Work2 Child Less than 6 Child Aged 6 to 12 Total Child Less than 6 Child Aged 6 to 12 Total Total
Student3 151,500 110,200 261,600 411,900 220,200 632,100 893,800
1 - 20 243,100 307,900 551,000 224,000 245,700 469,700 1,020,700
21 - 34 201,100 282,500 483,500 423,500 473,900 897,300 1,380,900
35 or more 634,000 887,300 1,521,300 2,068,700 2,720,400 4,789,100 6,310,400
Total 1,229,700 1,587,800 2,817,400 3,128,100 3,660,100 6,788,200 9,605,600
Percent of Total
  Married Family Head Single Family Head All

Weekly Hours of Work2

Child Less than 6 Child Aged 6 to 12 Total Child Less than 6 Child Aged 6 to 12 Total Total
Student3 1.6% 1.1% 2.7% 4.3% 2.3% 6.6% 9.3%
1 - 20 2.5% 3.2% 5.7% 2.3% 2.6% 4.9% 10.6%
21 - 34 2.1% 2.9% 5.0% 4.4% 4.9% 9.3% 14.4%
35 or more 6.6% 9.2% 15.8% 21.5% 28.3% 49.9% 65.7%
Total 12.8% 16.5% 29.3% 32.6% 38.1% 70.7% 100.0%
Notes: See text for detailed definitions of demographic categories. Subtotals may not sum to totals due to rounding.1 Children over the age of 12 are excluded from this table due to insufficient sample size.  Teenagers are only eligible for CCDF subsidies if they are disabled.2 If family head is married, hours worked by the spouse who works the fewest hours.  Note that the work-hours categories differ from the categories used in Table 3.3 Single student or at least one student in the married couple.Source: Urban Institute's TRIM3 microsimulation model
Table 6 Average Monthly Estimates of Children Under Age 13 Identified in the Simulations1 By Family Marital Status, Parental Work Status, and Child's Age Federal Maximum Simulation
Number
  Married Family Head Single Family Head All
Weekly Hours of Work2 Child Less than 6 Child Aged 6 to 12 Total Child Less than 6 Child Aged 6 to 12 Total Total
Student3 221,600 179,000 400,600 413,700 222,900 636,500 1,037,100
1 - 20 630,600 733,700 1,364,300 268,200 296,100 564,300 1,928,600
21 - 34 491,000 645,400 1,136,500 473,600 540,100 1,013,700 2,150,200
35 or more 1,614,600 2,241,800 3,856,400 2,759,600 3,822,200 6,581,800 10,438,100
Total 2,957,800 3,800,000 6,757,800 3,915,100 4,881,200 8,796,300 15,554,100
Percent of Total
  Married Family Head Single Family Head All
Weekly Hours of Work2 Child Less than 6 Child Aged 6 to 12 Total Child Less than 6 Child Aged 6 to 12 Total Total
Student3 1.4% 1.2% 2.6% 2.7% 1.4% 4.1% 6.7%
1 - 20 4.1% 4.7% 8.8% 1.7% 1.9% 3.6% 12.4%
21 - 34 3.2% 4.1% 7.3% 3.0% 3.5% 6.5% 13.8%
35 or more 10.4% 14.4% 24.8% 17.7% 24.6% 42.3% 67.1%
Total 19.0% 24.4% 43.4% 25.2% 31.4% 56.6% 100.0%
Notes: See text for detailed definitions of demographic categories. Subtotals may not sum to totals due to rounding.1 Children over the age of 12 are excluded from this table due to insufficient sample size.2 If family head is married, hours worked by the spouse who works the fewest hours.  Note that the work-hours categories differ from the categories used in Table 3.3 Single student or at least one student in the married couple.Source: Urban Institute's TRIM3 microsimulation model

[ Go to Contents ]

References

Bureau of the Census, 2000. Source and Accuracy of the Data for the March 2000 Current Population Survey Microdata File, http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/ads/2000/ssrcacc.htm (and analogous publications for earlier years)

Collins, Ann M., Jean I. Layzer, J. Lee Kreader, Alan Werner, and Fred B. Glantz, 2000. National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families, State and Community Substudy Report. Project report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, from Abt Associates.

Department of Health and Human Services, 1999. Access to Child Care for Low-Income Working Families, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb.old/research/ccreport/ccreport.htm.

Greenberg, Mark, Joan Lombardi, and Rachel Schumacher, 2000. The Child Care And Development Fund: An Overview. Washington DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.

Tenny, Daniel, and Bob Zahradnik. 2001. The Poverty Despite Work Handbook, 2001. Washington, DC: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Wheaton, Laura, and Linda Giannarelli, 2000. Underreporting of Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the March CPS, American Statistical Association 2000 Proceedings of the Section on Government Statistics and Section on Social Statistics.

[ Go to Contents ]

Endnotes

1. The CCDF replaced the former Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) program.

2. Each state qualifies each year for a share of funds available without matching requirements. In addition, a state can elect to receive additional matching federal funds if the state meets certain maintenance of effort requirements and commits additional state funds to draw down the matching funds. Finally, a state can elect to transfer up to 30 percent of its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds to the CCDF program. See Greenberg, Lombardi, and Schumacher, 2000, for a more complete description of CCDF provisions.

3. See Collins, Layzer, Kreader, Werner, and Glantz, 2000, Appendix Table 2.7a.

4. The TRIM3 methodology was previously used to produce estimates of eligibility based on the October 1997 federal and state rules (Department of Health and Human Services, 1999). Estimates based on the October 2001 rules are forthcoming. The sets of estimates may vary due to fluctuations in demographic and economic conditions, changes to state program rules, ongoing efforts to refine the model, and sampling variability.

5. Full documentation of the TRIM3 system is available on the projects website, trim.urban.org.

6. For instance, if a person says she worked for 26 weeks and was unemployed for 26 weeks, with one spell of unemployment, the allocation process places all the persons earnings in either the first half or last half of the year, and assigns the person as a worker in 6 months and as unemployed for the other 6 months. There is a random component in the assignment of weeks of work, but the model controls the assignment so that the trends in employment and unemployment across the year match the trends according to the BLS. For more details, see the document titled Monthly Allocation on the TRIM3 projects website, trim.urban.org.

7. The model is limited to program requirements that are clearly defined in the state plans. If a state has requirements that are not in its state plan, or if certain categories of requirements are not consistently included in the majority of state plans, the model does not capture these requirements.

8. CPS subfamilies, both related and unrelated, are treated as separate families.

9. Evidence from state plans suggests that children with non-parent caretakers are treated differently in some states. Further, some states may not include older children or non-parent adults in the family unit for purposes of family size and/or family income. However, the plans were not explicit on these matters. Therefore, we have chosen to use the same family definition for all states rather than to incorrectly infer a states rules.

10. Re-determining eligibility each month is a simplification of the process. States establish a minimum certification period, often six months, so that they can assess each familys child care needs on a regular basis. However, states can require families to report income changes that occur during this period, so eligibility status may change in any month.

11. In the TRIM3 model, the family head and his/her spouse must meet the activity requirements regardless of their relationship to the children in the family. This provision is consistent with the broad definition of parent in the CCDF regulations  a parent by blood, marriage or adoption and also ... a legal guardian, or other person standing in loco parentis (Federal Register, July 24, 1998, Volume 63, Number 142; available from the Child Care Bureau at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ccb/policy1/current/finalrul/index.htm). Some state plans indicate that the state may provide child care to foster children regardless of the activity of the foster parent(s), but TRIM3 does not model this detail. For simplicity, the tables and the discussion of the results in this paper use parent to describe the head/spouse of a childs family.

12. TRIM3 allocates student status across the months in a manner consistent with the other allocations. For instance, if a person worked 26 weeks and said she was in school the other 26 weeks, then TRIM3 distributes her earnings across 6 months and assigns student status for the other 6 months. Note that TRIM3 does not identify cases when a person attends school during weeks that s/he is also working (such as someone who attends school part-time while working either full-time or part-time). Also, note that there is not a perfect relationship between the activities captured as school in the CPS and the education and training activities covered by CCDF programs. Some training may be missed by the CPS questions, and some school activities that are captured by the CPS may not be covered by all CCDF programs.

13. The CCDF regulations allow a special needs child to be defined as one who is physically or mentally incapable for caring for himself or herself, or under court supervision (see footnote 11 for citation). Children under court supervision include those receiving protective services or foster care.

14. The CPS does not directly report SSI receipt by children. A childs SSI income is intended to be captured on the income record of a parent or guardian, so a childs SSI receipt can be inferred if a parent/guardian who is neither elderly nor disabled reports SSI income. However, the number of childrens SSI cases inferred through parents reports is much less than the actual number of children who receive SSI. The TRIM3 model corrects for the under-reporting by assigning SSI receipt to additional eligible children in a way that reproduces the key characteristics of the actual childrens SSI caseload.

15. To correct for the under-reporting of welfare receipt in surveys, the CCDF eligibility model uses TRIM3-simulated SSI and TANF income in place of the reported amounts of SSI and TANF in its calculation of family income.

16. Some state plans indicate that the state may waive, on a case-by-case basis, the income eligibility requirements for children receiving protective services. However, the CPS does not have information on protective services receipt, so TRIM3 cannot make this exception and therefore requires all families to meet the states income requirements for eligibility.

17. TRIM3s 85 percent of SMI threshold for each state is based on the state median incomes for a family of size 4 in CY 1997, published by the Census Bureau (www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html). Due to the lag in the publication of these figures, the 1997 medians are the most recent that would have been available as of October 1999. We calculate SMI for other family sizes using multipliers used by the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Those multipliers are: .52 for a 1-person family, .68 for 2, .84 for 3, 1.16 for 5, 1.32 for 6, 1.35 for 7, 1.38 for 8, 1.41 for 9, and 1.44 for a 10-person family. These multipliers may or may not result in figures equal to the true state median incomes for families of each size. Families with more than 10 members are subjected to the income threshold for a family with 10 members.

18. More information about the input datasets and the methods for combining three years of CPS data is available from the authors.

19. The calculation of confidence intervals for estimates generated from three combined years of CPS data is described in Bureau of the Census, 2000.

20. For a further discussion of estimates, confidence intervals, and interpreting results, see Tenny and Zahradnik, 2001.

21. In particular, a difference between a states eligibility estimate from this report and the analogous estimate from the October 1997-based simulations may or may not represent a true increase or decrease in eligibility. Please contact the authors for more information on comparing these estimates with the prior set of estimates.

22. Annual eligibility estimates are also produced by TRIM3, and can be requested from the authors.

23. Measured in 1999 dollars. For simulations on 1997 and 1998 data, these income breaks are deflated to 1997 and 1998 dollars to determine the numbers of families and children at each income level.

24. The TRIM simulation of TANF, like the TRIM simulation of CCDF eligibility, operates on a monthly basis. The model simulates each familys eligibility for TANF in each month of the year. Eligible families that report TANF receipt are assumed to actually receive benefits. Additional eligible families are tagged as TANF recipients in a way that reproduces the actual size and characteristics of the TANF caseload according to the administrative data. This corrects for the fact that the CPS captures only about 61 percent of the actual average monthly TANF caseload (Wheaton and Giannarelli, 2000).

25. The CPS does not capture changes from part-time to full-time status, or vice versa, during the year. Instead, the survey asks for the usual hours worked per week during weeks that the person was working. However, this variable might still differ for a family or child across the months of eligibility if a parent was working in some months but a student in other months.

26. Although all states have income limits high enough to include all poor families, some states impose minimum work requirements that may disqualify some poor working families from eligibility.

27. We do not show confidence intervals for these tables; contact the authors for that information.


Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge our HHS/ASPE task officer, Julia Isaacs, for her substantive guidance in developing these estimates. We also thank Joan Turek, the TRIM3 contract's project officer, for her support in the development of the TRIM3 system as a whole.

Appendix

Contents

Appendix Tables:

  1. Minimum Number of Work Hours Required for CCDF Eligibility According to October 1999 State Plans
  2. Maximum Age of Disabled Child for CCDF Eligibility According to October 1999 State Plans
  3. Special Income Calculations for Determining CCDF Eligibility According to October 1999 State Plans
  4. Maximum Monthly Income Limit for Initial Eligibility According to October 1999 State Plans
  5. Maximum Monthly Income Limit for Continuing Eligibility According to October 1999 State Plans
  6. Federal Maximum Monthly Income Limit 85% CY 1997 Median Income

 

Appendix Table 1
Minimum Number of Work Hours Required for CCDF Eligibility
According to October 1999 State Plans
State Minimum Hours1,2
Alabama ---
Alaska ---
Arizona ---
Arkansas ---
California ---
Colorado ---
Connecticut ---
Delaware ---
District of Columbia 20
Florida 20
Georgia 25 3
Hawaii ---
Idaho ---
Illinois ---
Indiana ---
Iowa 28 4
Kansas ---
Kentucky ---
Louisiana 20
Maine ---
Maryland ---
Massachusetts ---
Michigan ---
Minnesota 20
Mississippi 20 5
Missouri ---
Montana ---
Nebraska ---
Nevada ---
New Hampshire ---
New Jersey 30
New Mexico ---
New York ---
North Carolina ---
North Dakota ---
Ohio ---
Oklahoma ---
Oregon ---
Pennsylvania ---
Rhode Island 20
South Carolina ---
South Dakota 20
Tennessee 40
Texas ---
Utah 15
Vermont ---
Virginia ---
Washington ---
West Virginia ---
Wisconsin ---
Wyoming ---
Notes:
1 If the state is marked "---", the state plan did not indicate a minimum work requirement.
2 Unless otherwise noted, if there are two parents in the family both must work the minimum hours.
3 If two parents are in the family, their combined work hours must be 35.
4 Work requirement waived if the family is on TANF.
5 If two parents are in the family, one must work 30 hours and the other must work 20.

 

Appendix Table 2
Maximum Age of Disabled Child for CCDF Eligibility
According to October 1999 State Plans
State Maximum Age
Alabama 18
Alaska 18
Arizona 12
Arkansas 18
California 18
Colorado 19
Connecticut 18
Delaware 18
District of Columbia 18
Florida 17
Georgia 18
Hawaii 18
Idaho 19
Illinois 19
Indiana 18
Iowa 18
Kansas 18
Kentucky 19
Louisiana 18
Maine 19
Maryland 18
Massachusetts 16
Michigan 17
Minnesota 14
Mississippi 18
Missouri 17
Montana 18
Nebraska 18
Nevada 19
New Hampshire 17
New Jersey 18
New Mexico 18
New York 17
North Carolina 17
North Dakota 18
Ohio 12
Oklahoma 18
Oregon 17
Pennsylvania 18
Rhode Island 19
South Carolina 18
South Dakota 17
Tennessee 18
Texas 19
Utah 18
Vermont 19
Virginia 17
Washington 18
West Virginia 17
Wisconsin 12
Wyoming 18

 

 

Appendix Table 3
Special Income Calculations for Determining CCDF Eligibility1
According to October 1999 State Plans
STATE Income Disregard2 Earned Income Deduction3
Alabama --- ---
Alaska --- ---
Arizona --- ---
Arkansas --- ---
California --- ---
Colorado --- ---
Connecticut --- ---
Delaware --- ---
District of Columbia --- ---
Florida --- ---
Georgia --- ---
Hawaii --- 25%
Idaho --- ---
Illinois --- 10%
Indiana --- ---
Iowa --- ---
Kansas --- ---
Kentucky --- ---
Louisiana --- ---
Maine --- ---
Maryland --- ---
Massachusetts --- ---
Michigan --- ---
Minnesota --- ---
Mississippi --- ---
Missouri --- ---
Montana --- ---
Nebraska --- ---
Nevada --- ---
New Hampshire --- ---
New Jersey --- ---
New Mexico SSI ---
New York --- ---
North Carolina TANF, SSI, other assistance ---
North Dakota --- ---
Ohio --- ---
Oklahoma --- ---
Oregon --- ---
Pennsylvania --- ---
Rhode Island --- ---
South Carolina --- ---
South Dakota --- 4%
Tennessee --- ---
Texas --- ---
Utah TANF $100
Vermont --- ---
Virginia --- ---
Washington --- 10% or 15%4
West Virginia SSI ---
Wisconsin --- ---
Wyoming SSI ---
Notes:
1 If the state is marked "---", the state plan did not indicate any special income calculation, so family income is all cash income.
2 Disregard this type of income when determining eligibility.
3 Deduct this amount from earned income only before determining eligibility.
4 Deduct 10% if earnings are less than the federal poverty level, deduct 15% if earnings are greater than or equal to the federal poverty level.

 

 

Appendix Table 4
Maximum Monthly Income Limit for Initial Eligibility
According to October 1999 State Plans
State Family Size1,2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Alabama 893 1,198 1,504 1,809 2,115 2,420 2,726 3,031 3,031 3,031
Alaska 0 2,990 3,694 4,397 5,101 5,804 6,508 7,211 7,915 8,618
Arizona 1,134 1,522 1,909 2,297 2,685 3,073 3,460 3,848 4,236 4,624
Arkansas 949 1,241 1,533 1,825 2,117 2,409 2,464 2,519 2,573 2,628
California 2,633 2,633 2,821 3,134 3,636 4,137 4,231 4,325 4,419 4,513
Colorado 1,271 1,705 2,139 2,574 3,009 3,444 3,878 4,313 4,748 5,183
Connecticut 1,575 2,060 2,545 3,029 3,514 3,999 4,090 4,181 4,271 4,362
Delaware 1,065 1,429 1,793 2,158 2,522 2,886 3,250 3,615 3,979 4,343
District of Columbia 0 2,076 2,326 2,576 2,826 3,076 3,326 3,576 3,826 4,076
Florida 1,006 1,356 1,706 2,056 2,406 2,756 3,106 3,456 3,806 4,156
Georgia 1,574 1,798 2,023 2,248 2,428 2,608 2,787 2,967 3,145 3,324
Hawaii 1,779 2,326 2,874 3,421 3,969 4,516 4,619 4,722 4,824 4,926
Idaho 0 1,356 1,706 2,056 2,406 2,756 3,106 3,456 3,806 4,156
Illinois 1 1,472 1,818 2,165 2,511 2,857 2,922 2,987 3,052 3,117
Indiana 959 1,294 1,628 1,962 2,296 2,625 2,956 3,288 3,619 3,950
Iowa 1,064 1,429 1,793 2,157 2,521 2,886 3,250 3,614 3,978 4,343
Kansas 0 1,705 2,139 2,574 3,009 3,444 3,878 4,313 4,748 5,183
Kentucky 1,099 1,475 1,851 2,227 2,603 2,979 3,355 3,731 4,107 4,483
Louisiana 1,498 1,959 2,420 2,880 3,341 3,802 3,889 3,975 4,061 4,148
Maine 1,777 2,324 2,871 3,418 3,965 4,512 4,615 4,717 4,820 4,922
Maryland 1,157 1,514 1,870 2,226 2,582 2,938 3,005 3,072 3,138 3,205
Massachusetts 0 1,843 2,276 2,709 3,143 3,576 3,657 3,738 3,819 3,901
Michigan 0 1,758 2,172 2,586 3,000 3,414 3,828 4,241 4,653 5,069
Minnesota 0 2,575 3,181 3,787 4,392 4,998 5,112 5,225 5,339 5,453
Mississippi 0 1,917 2,333 2,750 3,250 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667
Missouri 917 1,199 1,482 1,764 2,046 2,328 2,381 2,434 2,487 2,539
Montana 1,030 1,383 1,735 2,088 2,440 2,793 3,145 3,498 3,851 4,203
Nebraska 0 1,671 2,104 2,535 2,966 3,399 3,830 4,261 4,261 4,261
Nevada 1,732 2,265 2,798 3,331 3,864 4,397 4,497 4,597 4,697 4,797
New Hampshire 1,305 1,752 2,198 2,645 3,091 3,538 3,984 4,431 4,877 5,324
New Jersey 1,030 1,383 1,735 2,088 2,440 2,793 3,145 3,498 3,850 4,203
New Mexico 1,373 1,843 2,313 2,783 3,253 3,723 4,193 4,663 5,133 5,603
New York 1,447 1,893 2,338 2,783 3,229 3,674 3,758 3,841 3,925 4,008
North Carolina 1,683 2,201 2,719 3,237 3,755 4,273 4,370 4,467 4,564 4,661
North Dakota 0 1,979 2,445 2,910 3,376 3,841 3,929 4,016 4,103 4,191
Ohio 0 1,673 2,105 2,536 2,967 3,399 3,831 4,263 4,694 5,126
Oklahoma 0 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936
Oregon 0 1,775 2,087 2,289 2,674 3,060 3,447 3,832 3,832 3,832
Pennsylvania 1,270 1,705 2,139 2,574 3,009 3,444 3,878 4,313 4,748 5,183
Rhode Island 0 2,074 2,603 3,131 3,660 4,189 4,710 5,250 5,775 6,304
South Carolina 858 1,152 1,446 1,740 2,034 2,328 2,621 2,915 3,209 3,501
South Dakota 0 1,383 1,736 2,088 2,441 2,793 3,146 3,498 3,851 4,204
Tennessee 1,255 1,641 2,027 2,413 2,799 3,185 3,257 3,329 3,402 3,474
Texas 1,030 1,383 1,735 2,088 2,440 2,793 3,146 3,498 3,851 4,203
Utah 0 1,453 1,794 2,136 2,478 2,820 2,884 2,948 3,012 3,076
Vermont 2,586 2,586 2,586 3,115 3,645 4,176 4,176 4,176 4,176 4,176
Virginia 1,271 1,704 2,141 2,575 3,010 3,445 3,880 4,312 4,748 5,183
Washington 1,202 1,613 2,024 2,435 2,847 3,258 3,669 4,080 4,492 4,903
West Virginia 0 1,382 1,735 2,087 2,440 2,792 3,145 3,497 3,850 4,202
Wisconsin 0 1,521 1,909 2,296 2,684 3,072 3,460 3,847 4,235 4,623
Wyoming 914 1,226 1,539 1,852 2,164 2,477 2,790 3,102 3,414 3,727
Notes:
1 A few state plans did not give limits for the largest family sizes (sizes 9 and 10).  In those cases, we estimated the limits based on the patterns for other family sizes.
2 Not all states gave limits for family size 1, which would always be a child-only unit with one child. TRIM does not use the family size 1 limits for any families, because it treats non-parent caretakers the same as parents in all states.

 

 

Appendix Table 5
Maximum Monthly Income Limit for Continuing Eligibility
According to October 1999 State Plans
State Family Size1,2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Alabama 1,843 1,843 2,313 2,783 3,253 3,723 4,193 4,663 4,663 4,663
Alaska 0 2,990 3,694 4,397 5,101 5,804 6,508 7,211 7,915 8,618
Arizona 1,134 1,522 1,909 2,297 2,685 3,073 3,460 3,848 4,236 4,624
Arkansas 949 1,241 1,533 1,825 2,117 2,409 2,464 2,519 2,573 2,628
California 2,633 2,633 2,821 3,134 3,636 4,137 4,231 4,325 4,419 4,513
Colorado 1,271 1,705 2,139 2,574 3,009 3,444 3,878 4,313 4,748 5,183
Connecticut 2,363 3,090 3,817 4,544 5,271 5,998 6,135 6,271 6,407 6,544
Delaware 1,065 1,429 1,793 2,158 2,522 2,886 3,250 3,615 3,979 4,343
District of Columbia 0 2,076 2,326 2,576 2,826 3,076 3,326 3,576 3,826 4,076
Florida 1,006 1,356 1,706 2,056 2,406 2,756 3,106 3,456 3,806 4,156
Georgia3 1,816 2,075 2,334 2,594 2,801 3,009 3,216 3,424 3,609 3,814
Hawaii 1,779 2,326 2,874 3,421 3,969 4,516 4,619 4,722 4,824 4,926
Idaho 0 1,356 1,706 2,056 2,406 2,756 3,106 3,456 3,806 4,156
Illinois 1 1,472 1,818 2,165 2,511 2,857 2,922 2,987 3,052 3,117
Indiana 1,275 1,718 2,161 2,605 3,048 3,481 3,921 4,361 4,800 5,240
Iowa 1,064 1,429 1,793 2,157 2,521 2,886 3,250 3,614 3,978 4,343
Kansas 0 1,705 2,139 2,574 3,009 3,444 3,878 4,313 4,748 5,183
Kentucky 1,099 1,475 1,851 2,227 2,603 2,979 3,355 3,731 4,107 4,483
Louisiana 1,498 1,959 2,420 2,880 3,341 3,802 3,889 3,975 4,061 4,148
Maine 1,777 2,324 2,871 3,418 3,965 4,512 4,615 4,717 4,820 4,922
Maryland 1,157 1,514 1,870 2,226 2,582 2,938 3,005 3,072 3,138 3,205
Massachusetts4 0 3,132 3,869 4,606 5,342 6,079 6,217 6,355 6,494 6,631
Michigan 0 1,758 2,172 2,586 3,000 3,414 3,828 4,241 4,653 5,069
Minnesota 0 2,575 3,181 3,787 4,392 4,998 5,112 5,225 5,339 5,453
Mississippi 0 1,917 2,333 2,750 3,250 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667
Missouri 917 1,199 1,482 1,764 2,046 2,328 2,381 2,434 2,487 2,539
Montana 1,030 1,383 1,735 2,088 2,440 2,793 3,145 3,498 3,851 4,203
Nebraska 0 1,671 2,104 2,535 2,966 3,399 3,830 4,261 4,261 4,261
Nevada 1,732 2,265 2,798 3,331 3,864 4,397 4,497 4,597 4,697 4,797
New Hampshire 1,305 1,752 2,198 2,645 3,091 3,538 3,984 4,431 4,877 5,324
New Jersey 1,717 2,304 2,892 3,479 4,067 4,654 5,242 5,829 6,417 7,004
New Mexico 1,373 1,843 2,313 2,783 3,253 3,723 4,193 4,663 5,133 5,603
New York 1,447 1,893 2,338 2,783 3,229 3,674 3,758 3,841 3,925 4,008
North Carolina 1,683 2,201 2,719 3,237 3,755 4,273 4,370 4,467 4,564 4,661
North Dakota 0 1,979 2,445 2,910 3,376 3,841 3,929 4,016 4,103 4,191
Ohio 0 1,673 2,105 2,536 2,967 3,399 3,831 4,263 4,694 5,126
Oklahoma 0 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936 1,936
Oregon 0 1,775 2,087 2,289 2,674 3,060 3,447 3,832 3,832 3,832
Pennsylvania 1,614 2,167 2,719 3,271 3,823 4,376 4,928 5,480 6,032 6,585
Rhode Island 0 2,074 2,603 3,131 3,660 4,189 4,710 5,250 5,775 6,304
South Carolina 1,201 1,612 2,024 2,435 2,846 3,257 3,669 4,080 4,491 4,902
South Dakota3 0 1,706 2,140 2,575 3,010 3,445 3,879 4,314 4,749 5,184
Tennessee 1,255 1,641 2,027 2,413 2,799 3,185 3,257 3,329 3,402 3,474
Texas 1,030 1,383 1,735 2,088 2,440 2,793 3,146 3,498 3,851 4,203
Utah3 0 2,205 2,724 3,242 3,761 4,280 4,377 4,475 4,572 4,669
Vermont 2,586 2,586 2,586 3,115 3,645 4,176 4,176 4,176 4,176 4,176
Virginia 1,271 1,704 2,141 2,575 3,010 3,445 3,880 4,312 4,748 5,183
Washington 1,202 1,613 2,024 2,435 2,847 3,258 3,669 4,080 4,492 4,903
West Virginia 0 1,382 1,735 2,087 2,440 2,792 3,145 3,497 3,850 4,202
Wisconsin 0 1,521 1,909 2,296 2,684 3,072 3,460 3,847 4,235 4,623
Wyoming 914 1,226 1,539 1,852 2,164 2,477 2,790 3,102 3,414 3,727
Notes: 
1 A few state plans did not give limits for the largest family sizes (sizes 9 and 10).  In those cases, we estimated the limits based on the patterns for other family sizes.
2 Not all states gave limits for family size 1, which would always be a child-only unit with one child. TRIM does not use the family size 1 limits for any families, because it treats non-parent caretakers the same as parents in all states.
3 Initial eligibility limit for children with disabilities (continuing eligibility limit is the same as initial for all other children).
4 Initial eligibility limit for children with disabilities, continuing eligibility limit for all other children.

 

 

Appendix Table 6
Federal Maximum Monthly Income Limit
85% CY 1997 Median Income
State Family Size
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Alabama 1,777 2,324 2,870 3,417 3,964 4,510 4,613 4,715 4,818 4,920
Alaska 2,117 2,768 3,420 4,071 4,722 5,374 5,496 5,618 5,740 5,862
Arizona 1,736 2,270 2,804 3,339 3,873 4,407 4,507 4,607 4,707 4,808
Arkansas 1,423 1,861 2,299 2,737 3,175 3,613 3,696 3,778 3,860 3,942
California 2,034 2,660 3,285 3,911 4,537 5,163 5,280 5,397 5,515 5,632
Colorado 2,173 2,841 3,510 4,178 4,847 5,515 5,641 5,766 5,891 6,017
Connecticut 2,678 3,502 4,326 5,150 5,974 6,798 6,953 7,107 7,262 7,416
Delaware 2,327 3,043 3,759 4,475 5,191 5,906 6,041 6,175 6,309 6,443
District of Columbia 2,067 2,703 3,339 3,976 4,612 5,248 5,367 5,486 5,605 5,725
Florida 1,838 2,404 2,970 3,536 4,101 4,667 4,773 4,879 4,985 5,091
Georgia 1,902 2,488 3,073 3,658 4,244 4,829 4,939 5,049 5,158 5,268
Hawaii 2,154 2,816 3,479 4,142 4,805 5,467 5,592 5,716 5,840 5,964
Idaho 1,699 2,222 2,744 3,267 3,790 4,313 4,411 4,509 4,607 4,705
Illinois 2,129 2,785 3,440 4,095 4,750 5,405 5,528 5,651 5,774 5,897
Indiana 1,974 2,581 3,188 3,795 4,403 5,010 5,124 5,238 5,351 5,465
Iowa 1,907 2,494 3,081 3,668 4,255 4,842 4,952 5,062 5,172 5,282
Kansas 1,948 2,548 3,148 3,747 4,347 4,946 5,059 5,171 5,283 5,396
Kentucky 1,696 2,217 2,739 3,261 3,782 4,304 4,402 4,500 4,598 4,695
Louisiana 1,698 2,220 2,742 3,264 3,787 4,309 4,407 4,505 4,603 4,701
Maine 1,770 2,314 2,859 3,403 3,948 4,492 4,594 4,696 4,798 4,900
Maryland 2,450 3,203 3,957 4,711 5,465 6,218 6,360 6,501 6,642 6,784
Massachusetts 2,395 3,131 3,868 4,605 5,342 6,079 6,217 6,355 6,493 6,631
Michigan 2,119 2,771 3,422 4,074 4,726 5,378 5,500 5,623 5,745 5,867
Minnesota 2,231 2,918 3,604 4,291 4,977 5,664 5,793 5,921 6,050 6,179
Mississippi 1,556 2,034 2,513 2,992 3,471 3,949 4,039 4,129 4,219 4,308
Missouri 1,922 2,513 3,105 3,696 4,287 4,879 4,990 5,100 5,211 5,322
Montana 1,604 2,098 2,592 3,085 3,579 4,073 4,165 4,258 4,350 4,443
Nebraska 1,968 2,573 3,178 3,784 4,389 4,995 5,108 5,222 5,335 5,449
Nevada 1,963 2,567 3,171 3,776 4,380 4,984 5,097 5,210 5,324 5,437
New Hampshire 2,209 2,889 3,569 4,249 4,928 5,608 5,736 5,863 5,991 6,118
New Jersey 2,480 3,243 4,006 4,770 5,533 6,296 6,439 6,582 6,725 6,868
New Mexico 1,475 1,928 2,382 2,836 3,289 3,743 3,828 3,913 3,998 4,083
New York 2,059 2,693 3,327 3,960 4,594 5,228 5,346 5,465 5,584 5,703
North Carolina 1,908 2,495 3,082 3,668 4,255 4,842 4,952 5,062 5,173 5,283
North Dakota 1,728 2,260 2,792 3,324 3,855 4,387 4,487 4,587 4,686 4,786
Ohio 2,060 2,694 3,328 3,961 4,595 5,229 5,348 5,467 5,586 5,704
Oklahoma 1,631 2,133 2,635 3,137 3,639 4,140 4,235 4,329 4,423 4,517
Oregon 1,997 2,612 3,226 3,841 4,456 5,070 5,185 5,301 5,416 5,531
Pennsylvania 2,040 2,668 3,295 3,923 4,551 5,179 5,296 5,414 5,532 5,649
Rhode Island 2,284 2,987 3,689 4,392 5,095 5,797 5,929 6,061 6,193 6,325
South Carolina 1,829 2,392 2,955 3,518 4,080 4,643 4,749 4,854 4,960 5,065
South Dakota 1,725 2,256 2,786 3,317 3,848 4,379 4,478 4,578 4,677 4,777
Tennessee 1,777 2,324 2,871 3,417 3,964 4,511 4,613 4,716 4,818 4,921
Texas 1,768 2,312 2,856 3,400 3,945 4,489 4,591 4,693 4,795 4,897
Utah 1,872 2,448 3,024 3,600 4,176 4,752 4,860 4,968 5,076 5,184
Vermont 1,908 2,496 3,083 3,670 4,257 4,845 4,955 5,065 5,175 5,285
Virginia 2,101 2,748 3,394 4,041 4,688 5,334 5,455 5,577 5,698 5,819
Washington 2,115 2,766 3,417 4,067 4,718 5,369 5,491 5,613 5,735 5,857
West Virginia 1,608 2,103 2,598 3,093 3,588 4,083 4,176 4,269 4,361 4,454
Wisconsin 2,109 2,759 3,408 4,057 4,706 5,355 5,476 5,598 5,720 5,842
Wyoming 1,783 2,332 2,881 3,429 3,978 4,527 4,629 4,732 4,835 4,938
Preview
Download

"report.pdf" (pdf, 1.06Mb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®