Sheet1Social Explorer - Census 2000StatisticsJefferson County, Ken.docx

Sheet1Social Explorer - Census 2000StatisticsJefferson County,
KentuckyKentuckyUnited StatesSE:T1. Total PopulationTotal
Population693,6044,041,769281,421,906SE:T3. Population
Density (per sq. mile)Total
Population693,6044,041,769281,421,906Population Density
(per sq. mile)1,801.2101.779.6Area
(Land)385.0939,728.183,537,438.54SE:T4. Land Area (sq.
miles)Area Total:398.5840,409.023,794,083.00Area
(Land)385.0996.6%39,728.1898.3%3,537,439.0093.2%Area
(Water)13.493.4%680.851.7%256,644.606.8%SE:T179. Poverty
Status In 1999 Of Families By Family Type By Presence Of
Children Under 18
YearsFamilies:183,6471,110,42672,261,780Income in 1999
below poverty
level:17,5269.5%140,51912.7%6,620,9459.2%Married Couple
Family: With Related Child Living Bellow Poverty
Level2,6341.4%40,1583.6%1,767,3682.5%Married Couple
Family: No related children under 18
years1,7961.0%29,1172.6%951,6911.3%Male householder, no
wife present:1,4750.8%10,5871.0%585,9700.8%With related
children under 18 years1,1170.6%7,9850.7%448,0390.6%No
related children under 18
years3580.2%2,6020.2%137,9310.2%Female householder, no
husband present:11,6216.3%60,6575.5%3,315,9164.6%With
related children under 18
years10,6355.8%53,3204.8%2,940,4594.1%No related children
under 18 years9860.5%7,3370.7%375,4570.5%Income in 1999
at or above poverty
level166,12190.5%969,90787.4%65,640,83590.8%SE:T180.
Poverty Status In 1999 For Children Under 18Population Under
18 Years of Age for whom poverty status is
determined:165,264978,23570,925,261Living in
Poverty30,60418.5%203,54720.8%11,746,85816.6%Not Living
in

Poverty134,66081.5%774,68879.2%59,178,40383.4%SE:T181.
Poverty Status In 1999 For Population Age 18 to 64Population
Age 18 to 64 for whom poverty status is
determined:426,9702,472,272169,610,423Living in
Poverty45,72810.7%350,07214.2%18,865,18011.1%Not Living
in
Poverty381,24289.3%2,122,20085.8%150,745,24388.9%SE:T18
2. Poverty Status In 1999 For Population Age 65 And
OverPopulation Age 65 and Over for whom poverty status is
determined:88,648476,54033,346,548Living In
Poverty7,8118.8%67,47714.2%3,287,7749.9%Not Living In
Poverty80,83791.2%409,06385.8%30,058,77490.1%SE:T184.
Ratio Of Income In 1999 To Poverty LevelPopulation for whom
poverty status is
determined:680,8823,927,047273,882,232Under
.5040,4255.9%257,9496.6%15,337,4085.6%.50 to
.7421,2133.1%177,6324.5%8,510,3063.1%.75 to
.9922,5053.3%185,5154.7%10,052,0983.7%1.00 to
1.4953,5717.9%398,42810.2%23,420,3378.6%1.50 to
1.9955,3108.1%391,39610.0%23,874,4608.7%2.00 and
over487,85871.7%2,516,12764.1%192,687,62370.4%SE:T185.
Ratio Of Income In 1999 To Poverty Level
(Summarized)Population for whom poverty status is
determined:680,8823,927,047273,882,232Under 1.00 (Doing
Poorly)84,14312.4%621,09615.8%33,899,81212.4%1.00 to 1.99
(Stuggling)108,88116.0%789,82420.1%47,294,79717.3%Under
2.00 (Poor or
stuggling)193,02428.4%1,410,92035.9%81,194,60929.7%2.00
and over (Doing
ok)487,85871.7%2,516,12764.1%192,687,62370.4%SE:T186.
Poverty Status In 1999 (White Alone)White Alone Population
for whom poverty status is
determined:527,4583,548,449206,259,768Income in 1999 below
poverty level41,9338.0%520,96914.7%18,847,6749.1%Income
in 1999 at or above poverty
level485,52592.1%3,027,48085.3%187,412,09490.9%SE:T187.

Poverty Status In 1999 (Black Or African American
Alone)Black or African American Alone Population for whom
poverty status is determined:127,011274,94432,714,224Income
in 1999 below poverty
level37,06529.2%77,61028.2%8,146,14624.9%Income in 1999
at or above poverty
level89,94670.8%197,33471.8%24,568,07875.1%SE:T188.
Poverty Status In 1999 (American Indian And Alaska Native
Alone)American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Population for
whom poverty status is determined:1,6148,6372,367,505Income
in 1999 below poverty
level44627.6%2,45128.4%607,73425.7%Income in 1999 at or
above poverty
level1,16872.4%6,18671.6%1,759,77174.3%SE:T189. Poverty
Status In 1999 (Asian Alone)Asian Alone Population for whom
poverty status is determined:8,91927,5569,979,963Income in
1999 below poverty
level1,02411.5%3,43012.5%1,257,23712.6%Income in 1999 at
or above poverty
Status In 1999 (Native Hawaiian And Other Pacific Islander
Alone)Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone
Population for whom poverty status is
determined:2591,074364,909Income in 1999 below poverty
level5119.7%19318.0%64,55817.7%Income in 1999 at or above
poverty level20880.3%88182.0%300,35182.3%SE:T191.
Poverty Status In 1999 (Some Other Race Alone)Some other
race Alone Population for whom poverty status is
determined:4,20020,96615,100,625Income in 1999 below
poverty level1,06925.5%5,56926.6%3,687,58924.4%Income in
1999 at or above poverty
level3,13174.6%15,39773.4%11,413,03675.6%SE:T192.
Poverty Status In 1999 (Two Or More Races)Two or more races

Status In 1999 (Hispanic Or Latino)Hispanic or Latino
level8,70377.9%39,92175.0%26,652,99477.4%SE:T194.
Poverty Status In 1999 (White Alone, Not Hispanic Or
Latino)White Alone, not Hispanic or Latino Population for
whom poverty status is
determined:521,8023,520,882189,785,997Income in 1999 below
poverty level40,7187.8%514,40814.6%15,414,1198.1%Income
in 1999 at or above poverty
level481,08492.2%3,006,47485.4%174,371,87891.9%Note:For
data sources, citations and notes please take a look at sheet in
this workbook titled 'Sources & Notes.'© Social Explorer 2005-
2015
Sources & NotesSources & NotesSocial Explorer - Census
2000Social Explorer Tables (SE), Census 2000, U.S. Census
Bureau and Social Explorer
Running Head: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
1
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
2
Literature Review: Cultural Distance and Entry Mode
Name
Class
1. Introduction
Globalization has opened new business avenues for
organizations through the means of internationalization of the

business. The organizations, in order to survive and sustain in
global competition, adopt the route of international expansion.
Internationalization has become a key facilitating factor for
organization to grow their business and there are several
reasons which encourage an organization to enter international
market; low growth or stagnancy in home market, enhancing
global market, exploring attractive foreign markets or to counter
global competition by expanding operations. The decision to
expand in foreign market requires deliberation and analysis
because the costs of failed expansion are usually huge for an
organization. Once the management takes the decision to
expand in a foreign country, the company has to consider the
optimum entry mode in the identified market. Lu (2002)
described the selection of entry mode in foreign mode as a key
strategic decision during internationalization process to be made
by management. Root (1987) defines foreign market entry mode
as “an institutional arrangement that makes possible the entry of
a company’s products, technology, human skills, management,
or other resources into a foreign country” (187).
Foreign market entry mode influences the international
marketing plan of the company which makes entry mode a
significant determinant of performance and success of the
organization in foreign market. Furthermore, foreign market
entry mode requires considerable time and money investment
and it is significantly difficult to alter the entry mode strategy
once it has been put into implementation. The importance of
entry mode for the performance and success of business and the
difficulty of reversing the entry mode strategy, it is immensely
important to articulate the entry mode strategy appropriately
before implementing it. There are three major types of entry
modes for the businesses into a foreign market; export,
contractual and foreign direct investment. These entry modes
are further divided in sub-categories and businesses usually
prefer the entry mode most viable to them economically and

operationally. Each entry mode has varied implications on the
resources an organization has to commit to enter into the
foreign market, along with the control on foreign operations and
the exposure to risks. The choice of entry mode is considered to
be associated with cultural distance as well. Cultural distance is
the differences between the national cultures of two countries
and is primarily considered to be the difference between the
culture of organization’s home country and the foreign country
wherein organizations wants to expand the business. Cultural
distance impacts entry mode in a country and several researches
found an association between the cultural distance and entry
mode strategy (Kogut and Singh, 1988). 1.1 Research Study
The research study is focuses on analyzing relationship between
culture distance and selection of entry mode in international
market. The study focuses on two main variables i.e. culture
distance as an independent variable and selection of entry mode
as dependent variable. The primary objective of the research
study is ‘to analyze the role of culture distance on selection of
mode of international market entry’. Research questions that
will be utilized under the research study are:
· What all options of international market entry modes are
available for the small and large companies?
· How culture distances influence the choice of international
market entry mode?
· How culture distance and business entry mode in foreign
market influence the performance of business in international
market?
The purpose of literature review is to analyze and synthesize the
research work performed by earlier researchers on the research
topic. The synthesis of existing literature allows for the
identification of themes discussed by researchers. The major
themes which are covered in literature review are; different
types of entry modes available to enter into international

market; influence of culture distance on selection of entry
mode; and impact of culture distance along with entry mode on
business performance in international market, challenges in
selection of international market and entry mode and different
factors that influence selection of business entry mode in
international market. 2. Major Themes in Literature Review
The literature review reveals several major themes related to the
research topic of cultural distance and the entry mode of
business in the foreign market. Several researchers have worked
on prevalent themes pertinent to research topic and have shed
light on the important dimensions of the research topic.
2.1 Challenges in Selection of International Market and Entry
Mode:
Sacha (2005) in his study analyzed various factors that impacts
selection of entry mode while expanding business in
international, markets. According to the author, there are
various factors such as entry time, political and economic
environment, social and culture conditions, and completion
level of the host country influence the decision related with
international entry mode. Sacha in his article describes different
types of research that were conducted for past few years to
analyze feasibility of business entry in international market.
This study provides information on book that covers literature
available on the subject (Sacha, 2005).
Papadopoulos & Martin (2011) in their article describe major
challenges companies face while selection and segmentation of
international market. The authors define different ways how
companies deal with the challenges present in selection of
international markets. The research study conducted by the
authors utilize available secondary information and observation.
Findings of the study inform that there are various factors that
decide selection of international market such as product type,
competitive advantage of the company, experience of global

market and characteristics of target market (Papadopoulos &
Martin, 2011).
Foreign markets have tremendous opportunities, but analyzing
risks and opportunities is a challenging task. Companies that are
entering into foreign markets should evaluate markets on macro
factors. A comparative study on industries, existing and
potential products and consumer behavior helps in determining
the right entry mode for international market (Papadopoulos &
Martin, 2011; Lee et al., 2011).
Ulrich et al. (2012) in their study conducted on 170 Danish
SMEs analyzed various factors that impact selection of
international entry mode, and evaluate relationship between
entry mode and financial performance of the companies.
According to the authors, the major challenges faced by the
company while expanding business in foreign market are
diversity, availability and characteristics of the target market,
consumer behavior and environmental factors. These factors
determine which should be shortlisted by the company. It
important for the companies to select markets that have
availability of good size of target market. Target markets can be
evaluated on different factors such as profile of target group of
consumers, economic environment and purchasing capacity of
the consumers, consumer requirements, changing trends, and
upcoming events (He & Wei, 2011; Lee et al., 2011; Ulrich et
al., 2012). These factors influence also helps in determining the
selection of entry mode.
2.2 Types of Entry Modes Available with the Companies for
Entering into International Market:
Brouthers (2013) in his study analyzed how business can make
effective decisions related with entry in international market.
The author analyzed performance of the different entry modes
selected by the companies and associated transactional cost.
According to the author, size of business, prior business
experience of international market, and type of commodity or
product play a major role in determining entry mode for

business (Brouthers, 2013).
Lee et al. (2011) mentioned that cultural distance impacts
decisions of entry in international market in great way.
Companies prefers to have wholly owned subsidiary in
international market, in case culture distance is high between
local country and targeted international market. Morschett et al.
(2010) in their article describe how companies select right entry
mode to enter in international market. The authors analyze the
data of 72 companies to determine the selection of wholly
owned subsidiary or cooperative entry modes. The authors
mentioned that companies do not prefer to have wholly owned
subsidiary if legal restrictions and market risks are high. Market
size and growth also impacts selection of international business
entry modes (Morschett et al., 2010; Ulrich et al., 2012).
Lee & Lieberman (2010) in their study describe the acquisition
and internal development as possible methods to enter in to new
market. According to the authors, company can enter into new
market by acquiring exiting well-known or evolving brand that
is operating in same field or products. Internal development
such as establishing new wholly owned subsidiary is another
way to enter into new international market. The authors
mentioned that acquisitions helps in filling present gaps in the
business by acquiring new product, skills or knowledge.
Papadopoulos & Martin (2011) mentioned that selection of
international entry modes depends upon various factors such as
government policies of host country, economic stability,
cultural distance, and market size and competition. Restriction
on foreign direct investments and conservative policy for
franchise operations limit the choice of entry modes for the
companies who want to enter into foreign market. Sacha (2005)
talk about international entry modes by using path analysis. The
author explained how favorable government policies of foreign
countries stimulates companies to invest in those countries. For
small companies and companies that have no experience of

operating in international market, export is best entry mode at
initial stage as it carry minimum risk (Papadopoulos & Martin,
2011; Sacha, 2005).
2.3 Influence of Culture on Selection of International Entry
Mode:
Lee et al. (2011) in their research study analyzed how culture
distance influence selection of international market entry
modes. The study focuses on analyzing impact of culture on
entry modes adopted by various multinational corporations. The
study analyzes role played by culture in making selection of
entry mode i.e. establishing new setup of business or acquiring
existing local business. The study analyses if impact of culture
is decreased when companies have vast global experience. The
findings of the research study shows that MNCs prefer to
establish new business when entering in new global market. The
study also shows no relation between impact of culture on
companies’ performance and global experience of the
companies. The study covered 320 companies under primary
research for the research purpose. The companies were selected
randomly. The study helps in understanding major factors
associated with the performance of companies entering into new
global market. The study also provides information on impact of
culture on different industries. The culture does not impact all
industries in same way and some industries such as food and
clothing are more impacted by the local culture (Lee et al.,
2011).
Hutzschenreuter et al. (2010) in their study analyzed the impact
of cultural distance on international business expansion. The
authors mentioned that high culture distance and diversity
negatively impact business expansion in international market
because of cost and complexities associated with it. The study
was conducted on 91 German organizations who are operating in
international market. Findings of the study revealed that
operation of wholly owned subsidiaries in highly diversified

market is complex (Hutzschenreuter et al., 2010).
Papadopoulos & Martin (2011) describe the importance of
culture in selection of international business entry mode. The
authors mentioned that developing countries have high potential
of business growth, but limited information on target market
and consumer behavior. Developed countries have good
profiling of target segments and ample information on
consumers, which make selection of entry mode easier as
compare to developing countries. Ulrich et al. (2012) talk about
importance of cultural understanding and its impact on selection
international business entry mode by saying “Companies with a
high degree of international experience are more likely to use
high control entry modes”. (Ulrich et al., 2012, p 16).
2.4 Different Factors That Influence Selection of Business Entry
Mode in International Market:
Nielsen & Nielsen (2011) in their study analyzed various factors
that influence the selection of international business entry
modes. Characteristics of top management team (TMT) and
companies’ experience of international market play major role
in determining right entry mode. The study revealed that “TMTs
with international experience are more likely to choose full-
control entry modes over shared-control entry modes, nationally
diverse TMTs are more inclined to opt for shared-control over
full-control entry modes when entering foreign markets”
(Nielsen & Nielsen, 2011, p 1). It is important to consider
international experience of team members and cultural diversity
as two separate factors while determining the entry mode.
Papadopoulos & Martin (2011) consider market size, consumer
characteristics and cost associated with every mode of entry as
major factors that determine the selection of international
business entry mode. Sacha (2005) mentioned that companies
analyze the risk associated with international market, market
size, company size, skills & capability, competitive advantage
and product life cycle while deciding on international business

entry mode. The risk is high in establishing wholly owned
subsidiary if product is on maturity or decline stage in
international market (Papadopoulos & Martin, 2011; Sacha,
2005).
2.5 Impact of Culture and Selected Entry Mode on Performance
of Business in International Market:
He & Wei (2011) in their article established a relationship
between international market selection and orientation with
business performance. The author mentioned business
performance in both culturally close and distance markets
depends upon their own capabilities, skills and assets. Sacha
(2005) describe that companies with diversified teams are more
capable to understand diversified markets that positively
impacts their ability to perform in international market.
Companies with experience of international market prefer to
select fully controlled entry modes in order to achieve better
financial results and reduce interference.
Lee at al. (2011) establishing setup from the base requires
higher time, resources and skills. However, controlled entry
modes often produced better results if performed in right
strategic manner. Companies should select modes after
evaluating the cost and benefits involved in the process.
Papadopoulos & Martin (2011) mentioned that culture can
impacts performance of international business in both positive
and negative way. If culture distance is high then companies are
required to think according to the consumers of different
markets, and should customize their products as per local needs
of international consumers. Companies can sale general product
across all markets if culture and requirements of consumers are
same across all target market (Lee at al., 2011; Papadopoulos &
Martin, 2011).
References
Brouthers, K. D. (2013). Institutional, cultural and transaction
cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal

of International Business Studies, 1-13.
**He, X., & Wei, Y. (2011). Linking market orientation to
international market selection and international performance.
International Business Review, 20(5), 535–546.
**Hutzschenreuter, T., Voll, J. C. and Verbeke, A. . (2011). The
Impact of Added Cultural Distance and Cultural Diversity on
International Expansion Patterns: A Penrosean Perspective.
Journal of Management Studies, 48(2), 305–329.
**Lee, C.A., Bang, H.Y., Ha, J.W., Lee, J.Y., and Kim, Y.H.Y.
(2011). An analysis of cultural impact on international business
performance via foreign market entry mode: case of South
Korean MNCs . Journal of Management and Marketing Research
, 1-8.
**Lee, G.K., and Lieberman, M.B. (2010). Acquisition vs.
internal development as modes of market entry. Strategic
Management Journal, 31(2), 140-158.
**Morschett, D., Schramm-Klein, H., & Swoboda, B. (2010).
Decades of research on market entry modes: What do we really
know about external antecedents of entry mode choice? Journal
of International Management, 16(1), 60-77.
Nielsen, B.B., & Nielsen, S. (2011). The role of top
management team international orientation in international
strategic decision-making: The choice of foreign entry mode.
Journal of World Business, 46(2), 185-193.
**Papadopoulos, N. & Martin, O. (2011). International market
selection and segmentation: perspectives and challenges.
International Marketing Review, 28(2), 132-149.
Sacha, J. (2005). Reviving Traditions in Research on
International Market Entry. International Marketing Review,

22(4), 474-475.
**Ulrich, A. M. D., Boyd, B., & Hollensen, S. (2012). Financial
Performance of Entry Mode Decisions: Effects of Control in .
International Journal of Business and Management, 7(24), 12-
28.
(per sq. mile)1,801.2101.779.6Area
(Land)385.0996.6%39,728.1898.3%3,537,439.0093.2%Area
(Water)13.493.4%680.851.7%256,644.606.8%SE:T14.
RaceTotal Population:693,6044,041,769281,421,906White
Alone536,72177.4%3,640,88990.1%211,460,62675.1%Black or
African American
Alone130,92818.9%295,9947.3%34,658,19012.3%American
Indian and Alaska Native
Alone1,5230.2%8,6160.2%2,475,9560.9%Asian
Alone9,6401.4%29,7440.7%10,242,9983.6%Native Hawaiian
and Other Pacific Islander
Alone2550.0%1,4600.0%398,8350.1%Some other race
Alone4,6950.7%22,6230.6%15,359,0735.5%Two or more
races9,8421.4%42,4431.1%6,826,2282.4%SE:T15. Hispanic Or
Latino By RaceTotal
Population693,6044,041,769281,421,906Not Hispanic or
Latino:681,23498.2%3,981,83098.5%246,116,08887.5%White
Alone530,05676.4%3,608,01389.3%194,552,77469.1%Black or
African American
Alone130,00318.7%293,6397.3%33,947,83712.1%American

Alone1,4090.2%7,9390.2%2,068,8830.7%Asian
Alone9,5621.4%29,3680.7%10,123,1693.6%Native Hawaiian
and Other Pacific Islander
Alone2240.0%1,2750.0%353,5090.1%Some other race
Alone1,1430.2%3,8460.1%467,7700.2%Two or more
races8,8371.3%37,7500.9%4,602,1461.6%Hispanic or
Latino:12,3701.8%59,9391.5%35,305,81812.6%White
Alone6,6651.0%32,8760.8%16,907,8526.0%Black or African
American Alone9250.1%2,3550.1%710,3530.3%American
Alone1140.0%6770.0%407,0730.1%Asian
Alone780.0%3760.0%119,8290.0%Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander Alone310.0%1850.0%45,3260.0%Some other
race Alone3,5520.5%18,7770.5%14,891,3035.3%Two or more
races1,0050.1%4,6930.1%2,224,0820.8%SE:T18. Hispanic Or
Latino By Specific OriginTotal
Population693,6044,041,769281,421,906Not Hispanic or
Latino681,23498.2%3,981,83098.5%246,116,08887.5%Hispanic
or
Latino:12,3701.8%59,9391.5%35,305,81812.6%Mexican5,0710.
7%31,3850.8%20,640,7117.3%Puerto
Rican1,3720.2%6,4690.2%3,406,1781.2%Cuban2,3250.3%3,516
0.1%1,241,6850.4%Dominican
Republic440.0%3100.0%764,9450.3%Central
American:7360.1%3,1160.1%1,686,9370.6%Costa
Rican230.0%1180.0%68,5880.0%Guatemalan2880.0%1,0900.0
%372,4870.1%Honduran640.0%4780.0%217,5690.1%Nicaragua
n410.0%1430.0%177,6840.1%Panamanian1070.0%5730.0%91,7
230.0%Salvadoran1930.0%6460.0%655,1650.2%Other Central
American200.0%680.0%103,7210.0%South
American:5880.1%1,9260.1%1,353,5620.5%Argentinean670.0%
1640.0%100,8640.0%Bolivian350.0%1040.0%42,0680.0%Chile
an520.0%1190.0%68,8490.0%Colombian1560.0%5870.0%470,6
840.2%Ecuadorian540.0%1980.0%260,5590.1%Paraguayan170.
0%380.0%8,7690.0%Peruvian1060.0%3480.0%233,9260.1%Uru
guayan50.0%210.0%18,8040.0%Venezuelan660.0%2640.0%91,

5070.0%Other South American300.0%830.0%57,5320.0%Other
Hispanic or
Latino:2,2340.3%13,2170.3%6,211,8002.2%Spaniard410.0%204
0.0%100,1350.0%Spanish2940.0%1,2890.0%686,0040.2%Spani
sh American270.0%1470.0%75,7720.0%All other Hispanic or
Latino1,8720.3%11,5770.3%5,349,8891.9%SE:T19. Asian By
Specific Origin (Asian With One Asian Category For Selected
Groups)Total Asian with one Asian category
only9,52929,40010,019,410Asian
Indian2,50926.3%6,77123.0%1,678,76516.8%Bangladeshi130.1
%1230.4%41,2800.4%Cambodian1211.3%3141.1%171,9371.7%
Chinese, except
Taiwanese1,48615.6%5,17117.6%2,314,53723.1%Filipino8649.
1%3,10610.6%1,850,31418.5%Hmong50.1%100.0%169,4281.7
%Indonesian70.1%1560.5%39,7570.4%Japanese4394.6%3,6831
2.5%796,7008.0%Korean1,15412.1%3,81813.0%1,076,87210.8
%Laotian1211.3%3161.1%168,7071.7%Malaysian100.1%720.2
%10,6900.1%Pakistani1341.4%4671.6%153,5331.5%Sri
Lankan280.3%1150.4%20,1450.2%Taiwanese420.4%2260.8%11
8,0481.2%Thai1241.3%5521.9%112,9891.1%Vietnamese2,2702
3.8%3,59612.2%1,122,52811.2%Other
Asian110.1%820.3%26,3100.3%Other Asian, not
specified1912.0%8222.8%146,8701.5%Note:For data sources,
citations and notes please take a look at sheet in this workbook
titled 'Sources & Notes.'© Social Explorer 2005-2015
(per sq. mile)1,801.2101.779.6Area

(Land)385.0996.6%39,728.1898.3%3,537,439.0093.2%Area
(Water)13.493.4%680.851.7%256,644.606.8%SE:T92.
Household Income In 1999
DollarsHouseholds:287,1331,591,739105,539,122Less than
$10,00030,65610.7%220,69213.9%10,067,0279.5%$10,000 to
$14,99919,2796.7%133,9778.4%6,657,2286.3%$15,000 to
$19,99919,2416.7%123,1557.7%6,601,0206.3%$20,000 to
$24,99920,4237.1%121,8797.7%6,935,9456.6%$25,000 to
$29,99919,7206.9%114,7027.2%6,801,0106.4%$30,000 to
$34,99918,6276.5%105,2426.6%6,718,2326.4%$35,000 to
$39,99917,3316.0%95,8156.0%6,236,1925.9%$40,000 to
$44,99916,2205.7%88,6695.6%5,965,8695.7%$45,000 to
$49,99914,7395.1%77,2004.9%5,244,2115.0%$50,000 to
$59,99925,2288.8%132,8978.4%9,537,1759.0%$60,000 to
$74,99927,6629.6%141,6338.9%11,003,42910.4%$75,000 to
$99,99927,2379.5%122,0087.7%10,799,24510.2%$100,000 to
$124,99912,7134.4%51,1443.2%5,491,5265.2%$125,000 to
$149,9996,2202.2%22,0841.4%2,656,3002.5%$150,000 to
$199,9995,5411.9%18,7571.2%2,322,0382.2%$200,000 or
more6,2962.2%21,8851.4%2,502,6752.4%SE:T93. Median
Household Income In 1999 DollarsMedian household income In
1999 Dollars$39,457$33,672$41,994SE:T94. Median Household
Income By Race In 1999 DollarsMedian household income In
1999 Dollars:$39,457$33,672$41,994White Alone
Householder$42,913$34,622$44,687Black or African American
Alone Householder$24,548$24,278$29,423American Indian and
Alaska Native Alone Householder$22,361$23,844$30,599Asian
Alone$47,192$46,225$51,908Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander Alone
Householder$34,712$29,135$42,717Some Other Race Alone
Householder$33,083$29,320$32,694Two or More Races
Householder$29,836$27,123$35,587Hispanic or Latino
Householder$30,503$29,541$33,676White Alone Householder,
not Hispanic or Latino$43,078$34,665$45,367SE:T96. Average
Household Income In 1999 DollarsAverage household income In

1999 Dollars$53,307$45,245$56,643SE:T98. Median Family
Income In 1999 DollarsMedian family income In 1999
Dollars$49,161$40,939$50,046SE:T99. Average Family Income
In 1999 DollarsAverage family income In 1999
Dollars$63,456$52,123$64,663SE:T100. Median Nonfamily
Household Income In 1999 DollarsMedian nonfamily household
income In 1999 Dollars$24,528$18,972$25,705SE:T101.
Average Non-Family Income In 1999 DollarsAverage nonfamily
income In 1999 Dollars$33,334$27,680$36,609SE:T136.
Households With Earnings In
1999Households:287,1331,591,739105,539,122With
earnings226,64178.9%1,217,19976.5%84,962,74380.5%No
earnings60,49221.1%374,54023.5%20,576,37919.5%SE:T137.
Households With Wage Or Salary Income In
1999Households:287,1331,591,739105,539,122With wage or
salary income220,89276.9%1,172,14073.6%82,024,82077.7%No
wage or salary
income66,24123.1%419,59926.4%23,514,30222.3%SE:T138.
Households With Self-Employment Income In
1999Households:287,1331,591,739105,539,122With self-
employment
income26,4999.2%189,03711.9%12,556,52611.9%No self-
employment
income260,63490.8%1,402,70288.1%92,982,59688.1%SE:T139.
Households With Interest, Dividends, Or Net Rental Income In
1999Households:287,1331,591,739105,539,122With interest,
dividends, or net rental
income97,78834.1%461,07129.0%37,860,63835.9%No interest,
dividends, or net rental
income189,34565.9%1,130,66871.0%67,678,48464.1%SE:T140.
Households With Social Security Income In
1999Households:287,1331,591,739105,539,122With Social
Security income77,67027.1%454,20028.5%27,084,41725.7%No
Social Security
income209,46373.0%1,137,53971.5%78,454,70574.3%SE:T141.
Households With Supplemental Security Income (SSI) In

1999Households:287,1331,591,739105,539,122With
Supplemental Security Income
(SSI)12,9014.5%114,3637.2%4,615,8854.4%No Supplemental
Security Income
(SSI)274,23295.5%1,477,37692.8%100,923,23795.6%SE:T142.
Households With Public Assistance Income In
1999Households:287,1331,591,739105,539,122With public
assistance income8,8783.1%60,0713.8%3,629,7323.4%No
public assistance
income278,25596.9%1,531,66896.2%101,909,39096.6%SE:T14
3. Households With Retirement Income In
1999Households:287,1331,591,739105,539,122With retirement
income53,84718.8%278,75717.5%17,659,05816.7%No
retirement
income233,28681.3%1,312,98282.5%87,880,06483.3%SE:T144.
Households With Other Types Of Income In
1999Households:287,1331,591,739105,539,122With other types
of income37,73113.1%229,97814.5%13,888,73813.2%No other
types of
income249,40286.9%1,361,76185.6%91,650,38486.8%SE:T145.
Per Capita Income In 1999 DollarsPer capita income In 1999
Dollars$22,352$18,093$21,587SE:T146. Per Capita Income In
1999 Dollars (White Alone)Per capita income In 1999
1999 Dollars (Black Or African American Alone)Per capita
income In 1999 Dollars$13,942$13,235$14,437SE:T148. Per
Capita Income In 1999 Dollars (American Indian And Alaska
Native Alone)Per capita income In 1999
1999 Dollars (Asian Alone)Per capita income In 1999
1999 Dollars (Native Hawaiian And Other Pacific Islander
Alone)Per capita income In 1999
1999 Dollars (Some Other Race Alone)Per capita income In
1999 Dollars$10,866$10,557$10,813SE:T152. Per Capita

Income In 1999 Dollars (Two Or More Races)Per capita income
In 1999 Dollars$12,900$11,052$13,405SE:T153. Per Capita
Income In 1999 Dollars (Hispanic Or Latino)Per capita income
In 1999 Dollars$13,526$11,962$12,111SE:T154. Per Capita
Income In 1999 Dollars (White Alone, Not Hispanic Or
Latino)Per capita income in
1999$24,839$18,629$24,819Note:For data sources, citations
and notes please take a look at sheet in this workbook titled
'Sources & Notes.'© Social Explorer 2005-2015

Sheet1Social Explorer - Census 2000StatisticsJefferson County, Ken.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Sheet1Social Explorer - Census 2000StatisticsJefferson County, Ken.docx

Similar to Sheet1Social Explorer - Census 2000StatisticsJefferson County, Ken.docx (20)

More from lesleyryder69361

More from lesleyryder69361 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Sheet1Social Explorer - Census 2000StatisticsJefferson County, Ken.docx