Van Buren County

Van Buren County, Arkansas — key demographics

Population

• 15,796 (2020 Census). Continued gradual decline since 2010.

Age

• Median age: ~50 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~19%
• 18 to 64: ~54%
• 65 and over: ~27%

Sex

• Female: ~50.6%
• Male: ~49.4%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023)

• Non-Hispanic White: ~90.8%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~3.8%
• Black or African American (NH): ~1.1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native (NH): ~1.3%
• Asian (NH): ~0.4%
• Two or more races (NH): ~2.6%

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

• Total households: ~6,900
• Average household size: ~2.3
• Family households: ~63% of households
• Married-couple households: ~49% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~22–24%
• Living alone: ~30% of households (about half of these age 65+)
• Tenure: ~79–80% owner-occupied, ~20–21% renter-occupied

Insights

• Older age profile with over one-quarter 65+, small share of children.
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White.
• High homeownership and smaller household size, consistent with rural/retirement-oriented communities.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates.

• Population and density: ~15,800 residents (2020), 708 sq mi land, ~22 people/sq mi.
• Estimated email users: ~12,300 residents (≈78% of total; ≈90% of adults).
• Age distribution of users:
  • 18–64: ~8,300 (≈67% of users)
  • 65+: ~3,400 (≈27%)
  • Teens 13–17: ~700 (≈6%)
• Gender split among users: ≈51% female (6,300) and ≈49% male (6,000), reflecting the county’s slightly older, more female-leaning population.
• Digital access trends: Home broadband availability and subscriptions are rising with ongoing fiber builds; mobile broadband is widely used. Satellite and fixed wireless help bridge gaps in sparsely populated areas, supporting consistent email access even where wireline options are limited.
• Local connectivity facts: Service and speeds are strongest in and around Clinton, Fairfield Bay, and along US‑65. Coverage is patchier in hollows near the Ozark foothills and Greers Ferry Lake due to terrain and low density, which raise last‑mile costs and depress adoption compared with urban parts of Arkansas.

Notes: User counts are derived from the county’s population and rural age mix combined with typical U.S. email adoption by age (high among working-age adults, slightly lower among seniors, moderate among teens).

Mobile phone usage in Van Buren County, Arkansas — 2024 snapshot

Key scale and usage estimates

• Population baseline: 15,796 residents (U.S. Census, 2020).
• Adult base: ~12,600 residents age 18+ (age structure from ACS applied to 2020 count).
• Estimated adult smartphone users: 10,500–11,000 (roughly 83–86% of adults), below Arkansas’ ~90% adult smartphone ownership benchmark.
• Active mobile subscriptions (SIMs): ~19,000–22,000 total in the county (about 1.2–1.4 lines per resident, consistent with CTIA statewide penetration norms).
• Household smartphone access: ~5,600–5,900 of roughly 6,800 households have a smartphone in the home (ACS-based inference).
• Smartphone-only internet households (cellular data plan but no fixed broadband): approximately 1,200–1,400 households (about 18–21%), higher than the Arkansas average of about 12–15%.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age
  • 18–34: near-saturation (≈95%+ own smartphones). Estimated 2,400–2,700 users.
  • 35–54: high adoption (≈90–94%). Estimated 3,500–3,900 users.
  • 55–64: moderate-high (≈82–88%). Estimated 1,800–2,000 users.
  • 65+: lower but rising (≈70–78%, vs AR seniors ≈76% statewide). With roughly 4,200–4,400 seniors locally, that implies 3,000–3,300 senior smartphone users.
• Income and plan type
  • Below-median incomes are overrepresented versus the state, correlating with higher reliance on smartphone-only internet access and a higher share of prepaid plans than the state average.
  • Households without any internet subscription are materially higher than the state (roughly low-20s percent in the county versus mid-to-high teens statewide), underscoring mobile’s role as a primary connection.
• Education and employment
  • Lower four-year degree attainment than Arkansas overall corresponds with greater mobile dependence for job search and public services, especially where home broadband is absent.
• Race/ethnicity
  • The county is predominantly White non-Hispanic (≈90%+). Differences in smartphone adoption by race are muted locally; observed gaps align more with income and age than with race.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Network footprint
  • 4G LTE from all three national carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T‑Mobile) is solid along US‑65 (Clinton corridor) and key population centers (Clinton, Fairfield Bay, Damascus), with coverage thinning in low-density lake and holler areas.
  • 5G availability is primarily low-band for broad coverage; mid-band 5G capacity (e.g., T‑Mobile n41 or AT&T/Verizon C‑band) is limited and mostly near towns, which constrains peak and indoor speeds compared to Arkansas metros.
• Performance
  • Typical rural mobile downloads range from mid-single digits to ~50 Mbps, with >100 Mbps pockets near towns where 5G or well‑provisioned LTE sectors are present. This trails statewide median mobile speeds, which benefit from denser cell grids and more mid-band 5G in urban areas.
• Terrain and siting
  • Ozark foothills, forested ridges, and lake inlets create shadow zones; tower spacing is wider off main corridors, reducing indoor reliability and uplink performance.
• Backhaul and fiber
  • Fixed fiber-to-the-home is present in pockets and expanding but remains less prevalent than state averages. The county has legacy DSL and limited cable footprints; consequently, many households default to cellular data plans for home internet.
• Public-safety and funding
  • AT&T FirstNet presence supports coverage on primary corridors. Ongoing federal/state programs (RDOF, BEAD) target rural last‑mile builds; Van Buren County stands to gain from 2025–2028 deployments, improving both backhaul to cell sites and residential fiber passings.

How Van Buren County differs from Arkansas overall

• Lower smartphone penetration among adults (by roughly 4–7 percentage points), driven by an older age profile and lower incomes.
• Higher smartphone-only household reliance (by roughly 4–7 points), reflecting more limited fixed broadband availability and affordability.
• Higher share of households with no internet subscription at all, elevating the importance of mobile for essential connectivity.
• Slower typical mobile speeds and more variable indoor coverage due to sparser towers, challenging terrain, and less mid-band 5G than in metro Arkansas.
• Carrier mix skews toward AT&T and Verizon in outlying areas; T‑Mobile coverage and capacity improve near towns but are less consistent countywide than state urban averages.

Methodological notes and sources

• Population and household counts: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; ACS age structure applied to derive adult base.
• Smartphone ownership benchmarks: Pew Research Center, Mobile Fact Sheet (2023) for U.S./rural; Arkansas adult ownership ~90% used as statewide benchmark.
• Household device/subscription patterns: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2018–2022 (Computer and Internet Use, S2801/S2802) to infer smartphone-in-home and cellular-only reliance, compared with Arkansas aggregates.
• Wireless-only households: CDC/NCHS National Health Interview Survey (wireless substitution) used as a state/rural proxy to indicate elevated wireless-only voice reliance.
• Subscription penetration: CTIA Annual Survey (2023) used to translate population to active SIM estimates.
• Coverage/performance: FCC National Broadband Map (2024) for availability; Ookla state-level medians (2024) and rural engineering norms to characterize county performance relative to state.

These figures give a conservative, evidence-based estimate of mobile usage scale and behavior in Van Buren County and highlight why mobile connectivity plays a disproportionately large role locally compared with the Arkansas average.

Van Buren County, AR — Social Media Snapshot (2025)

User stats

• Population: ~16.5K residents; ~14.3K are age 13+
• Estimated social media users (13+): ~10.0K (≈70% of 13+; ≈61% of total population)
• Active daily users: ~6.0K–6.8K (≈60–68% of social users)

Age mix of social media users

• 13–17: 5–7%
• 18–24: 8–10%
• 25–34: 14–16%
• 35–44: 17–19%
• 45–54: 16–18%
• 55–64: 16–18%
• 65+: 17–19%

Gender breakdown (of social users)

• Female: 52–54%
• Male: 46–48%

Most‑used platforms (monthly reach among local social media users)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 70–76%
• Facebook Groups/Marketplace: 60–70% (share of all social users; very high usage among Facebook users)
• Instagram: 25–30%
• TikTok: 20–26%
• Pinterest: 20–25%
• Snapchat: 12–16%
• X (Twitter): 9–12%
• LinkedIn: 7–10%
• WhatsApp: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: 3–6%

Behavioral trends

• Community and commerce happen on Facebook: school sports, church updates, local news, road/weather alerts, and buy/sell via Marketplace and yard‑sale groups drive the most engagement.
• Video is practical and local: YouTube dominates for how‑to, home/auto repair, hunting/fishing, gardening, and lake‑life content; short-form TikTok is concentrated under 35.
• Shopping journey is social-first: discovery via Facebook/Instagram posts and Reels; transactions and inquiries shift to Messenger/DMs; local pickup preferred.
• Content that performs: local faces/landmarks, event reminders, before/after projects, severe‑weather info, and limited‑time offers; concise videos (<2 minutes) with captions.
• Timing: peaks 7–9 pm on weekdays; secondary peaks 6–8 am and 11:30 am–1 pm; Marketplace surges Saturday morning; community posts lift Sunday afternoon.
• Demographic tilt: older users cluster on Facebook and YouTube; younger users split across Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat; LinkedIn and X are niche.

Method note

• Figures are best‑available local estimates using 2023 ACS county population and 2024 Pew Research Center U.S. platform adoption rates, adjusted for rural/older age profile; ranges reflect expected ±3–5 percentage‑point variation.