Graham County

Graham County, Arizona — key demographics

Population

• Total population: 38,533 (2020 Census)
• 2023 estimate: 41,100 (U.S. Census Bureau estimates)

Age

• Median age: 33.8 years
• Under 18: 28%
• 18–64: 58%
• 65 and over: 14%

Gender

• Male: 54%
• Female: 46%

Racial/ethnic composition

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 36%
• White alone, non-Hispanic: 49%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 14%
• Black or African American alone: 3%
• Asian alone: 1%
• Two or more races: 4% Note: Hispanic is an ethnicity; race categories may overlap with Hispanic.

Households

• Number of households: ~12,800
• Average household size: 3.0
• Family households: ~71% of households
• Married-couple families: ~55% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~40%
• Owner-occupied housing unit rate: ~72%

Insights

• Younger median age and larger household size than the U.S. average
• Male-skewed sex ratio influenced by correctional facilities
• Substantial Hispanic and American Indian populations shaping local demographics

• Estimated email users: ~26,500 adults in Graham County, AZ.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–34: 38%
  • 35–54: 34%
  • 55–64: 15%
  • 65+: 13%
• Gender split of email users: 52% male, 48% female.

Digital access and usage trends:

• Household broadband subscription: ~78% of households; adoption continues to rise, with fixed wireless and fiber expanding along the Safford–Thatcher–Pima corridor.
• Smartphone ownership: ~88% of adults; ~14% are smartphone‑only for home internet, reinforcing mobile‑first email access.
• Email engagement: ~60% of adults check email daily; ~35% maintain multiple email accounts (personal, work/school, services).
• Access gaps persist in remote areas, where speeds and reliability are lower, increasing dependence on mobile networks and public Wi‑Fi.

Local density/connectivity facts:

• Population ~38,500 across 4,641 sq mi (≈8.3 people per sq mi), making it one of Arizona’s lower‑density counties and raising last‑mile costs.
• Community anchors (libraries and Eastern Arizona College) provide crucial Wi‑Fi and device access that support email use among students and lower‑income residents.

Mobile phone usage in Graham County, Arizona — 2024 snapshot

Core user estimates

• Population and base: ~41,000 residents (2023 est.); ~29,500 adults (18+).
• Smartphone users: ~27,000–28,000 total users (≈24,000–25,000 adults plus ≈3,000 teens), implying adult smartphone adoption around 81–84% versus Arizona’s ~86–88%.
• Total mobile phone users (smart + basic): ~29,000–30,000 residents carry a mobile phone.
• Household internet mix (≈12,500–12,900 households):
  • Any broadband subscription (fixed or cellular): ~78–82% (state ~88–90%).
  • Smartphone/cellular-only internet households: ~18–22% (state ~12–14%).
  • No home internet: ~12–15% (state ~8–10%).

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age:
  • Larger 18–24 cohort than statewide due to Eastern Arizona College; smartphone adoption near saturation (≈95%+) in 18–29.
  • 65+ adoption lags state: ~70–75% in county vs ~80%+ statewide, with higher reliance on voice/SMS and simpler Android devices.
• Income and plan type:
  • Median household income in the high-$50Ks (below the Arizona median in the low-$70Ks). Prepaid and value MVNO plans have above-average share; multi-line family plans remain a primary cost-control strategy.
  • Cellular-only households are concentrated among lower-income and renter households in Safford/Thatcher and in outlying communities.
• Ethnicity and language:
  • Roughly: 50–52% White (non-Hispanic), 35–38% Hispanic/Latino, 9–12% American Indian/Alaska Native (San Carlos Apache communities in and near Bylas), 3–5% other groups.
  • Bilingual use is common; WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and SMS see heavier day-to-day use than in metro Arizona.
• Device mix:
  • Android skew is stronger than statewide: ~60–65% Android vs ~35–40% iOS (Arizona overall is closer to a 50/50 split).
  • Ruggedized Android handsets and push-to-talk features are more prevalent among agriculture, utilities, and mining-related workers.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• 4G LTE: Near-universal population coverage in the Safford–Thatcher–Pima corridor and along US‑70/US‑191; substantial dead zones persist in mountainous terrain (Mt. Graham/Coronado NF), canyons (e.g., Aravaipa vicinity), and sparsely populated ranchlands.
• 5G:
  • Population coverage: roughly 60–70% of residents have access to some form of 5G in town centers and along primary highways; statewide 5G POP coverage exceeds 90%.
  • Mid-band 5G (T-Mobile 2.5 GHz, Verizon/AT&T C-band) is concentrated in Safford/Thatcher/Pima; much of the county relies on low-band 5G or LTE.
• Performance:
  • Typical median mobile downlink speeds countywide: ~35–55 Mbps, with 5G mid-band pockets in town often 100–200 Mbps; rural edges drop to single-digit Mbps or 3G fallback. Arizona metro medians commonly exceed 90–140 Mbps.
  • Peak-hour slowdowns correlate with microwave backhaul links and limited sector capacity on edge towers.
• Backhaul and fiber:
  • Fiber backhaul is strongest along US‑70 through the Gila Valley; many outlying sites rely on high-capacity microwave, which constrains mid-band 5G rollouts and uplink performance.
• Carriers:
  • All three national MNOs serve the county. Verizon tends to have the broadest rural LTE footprint; T-Mobile shows strong in-town 5G from 600 MHz + 2.5 GHz; AT&T provides solid low-band 5G/850 LTE coverage with more variable mid-band availability. MVNOs ride these networks with similar coverage but may have deprioritized speeds.

How Graham County differs from the Arizona statewide picture

• Lower adoption and more mobile-first: Adult smartphone adoption trails the state by a few points, while smartphone/cellular-only households are 4–8 points higher than the state share, reflecting lower incomes, renter status, and rural last-mile constraints.
• Slower speeds and spottier mid-band 5G: 5G POP coverage is ~20–30 points lower than statewide, and median speeds are notably lower outside town centers.
• More Android and prepaid: A clear tilt toward Android devices and prepaid/MVNO plans versus the more even OS split and postpaid dominance in metro areas.
• Heavier reliance on voice/SMS and messaging apps: Data-light use cases remain common in fringe coverage areas, and bilingual households show above-average use of WhatsApp and Messenger.
• Terrain-driven gaps: Mountain and canyon topography creates persistent coverage holes not typical of Arizona’s major metros, shaping device and plan choices (Wi‑Fi calling, external antennas, hotspot tethering).

Practical implications

• Capacity investments that matter most locally: additional mid-band 5G sectors in Safford/Thatcher/Pima; fiber backhaul upgrades on edge sites; and low-band infill along US‑70/US‑191 and reservation corridors.
• Outreach and adoption: targeted subsidies and device-upgrade programs for seniors and low-income households would reduce the county’s higher no‑internet and cellular-only reliance.
• Enterprise and public safety: mining, agriculture, and wildfire/monsoon response benefit from improved rural sector capacity, CBRS/private LTE pilots near critical worksites, and hardened backup power on towers.

Social media in Graham County, AZ — 2024/2025 snapshot

Core user stats

• Residents using social media (age 13+): approximately 25,000–28,000, or about 70–78% of the 13+ population.
• Adults (18+) using at least one platform: roughly 70–75% (about 21,000–23,000 adults).
• Access context: smartphone ownership among adults is high (mid–80s to ~90%); home broadband availability and take-up are somewhat lower than state urban averages but sufficient to support heavy mobile-first usage.

Most-used platforms (adult reach, monthly; modeled from latest rural/state benchmarks)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 65–70%
• Instagram: 40–45%
• TikTok: 30–35%
• Snapchat: 25–30% (much higher among 13–24)
• Pinterest: 25–30% (strong female skew)
• WhatsApp: 20–25% (notably used in Hispanic households)
• X (Twitter): 10–15%
• LinkedIn: 12–18% (lower given local industry mix)
• Reddit: 10–12% Note: YouTube and Facebook are the clear reach leaders; Instagram is the third-highest; TikTok has meaningful but not majority penetration among adults.

Age-group patterns

• Teens (13–17): Near-universal YouTube; Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok are each used by a solid majority; Facebook is secondary.
• 18–24 (college-age): Heaviest daily time on Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok; YouTube nearly universal; Facebook used for groups, events, and family.
• 25–44: Multiplatform; Facebook and YouTube are anchors; Instagram common; TikTok adoption rising; Snapchat fades after late 20s.
• 45–64: Facebook is dominant for news/community; YouTube strong for how‑to and hobbies; limited Instagram/TikTok.
• 65+: Facebook first; YouTube second; light adoption of other platforms.

Gender breakdown (adult skews)

• Overall user base is roughly even by gender.
• Women over-index on Facebook (+5–8 percentage points vs men), Instagram (+3–5), and especially Pinterest (about 2x men).
• Men over-index on YouTube (+5–7), Reddit (about 2x women), and X (+2–3).
• TikTok and Snapchat are more balanced in younger cohorts; Snapchat tilts female among 18–24.

Behavioral trends and local nuances

• Facebook Groups serve as the community hub for school updates, local news, buy/sell/trade, church events, youth sports, and emergency/wildfire/monsoon updates.
• Marketplace activity is high; many small businesses and hobby sellers rely on Facebook + Messenger for inquiries and sales.
• Short‑form video (Reels, TikTok, YouTube Shorts) drives discovery for restaurants, outdoor recreation, outfitters, salons, and events.
• Messaging is central to engagement: Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp (bilingual English/Spanish) are key for family coordination and business DMs.
• Event-driven spikes: county fair, rodeos, graduation, high school/college sports, holiday parades, and weather incidents boost local reach.
• Best posting windows: evenings (7–9 pm local time) and weekends; daytime reach increases during weather and school-related announcements.
• Trust flows to hyperlocal sources: city/county pages, school districts, churches, and local media; user‑generated photos and video outperform polished ads.
• Geo-tags and check-ins at parks, trails, and venues work better than heavy hashtagging for local discovery.

Method note

• County-specific platform measurements are not directly published; figures above are modeled from 2023–2024 Pew Research Center platform adoption, rural U.S./Arizona benchmarks, and ACS demographic profiles for Graham County. These provide grounded local estimates and reliable behavioral direction.