Sierra County

Sierra County, California – key demographics

Population size

• 3,236 (2020 Census)
• ~3.3k (2023 Census Bureau estimate)

Age structure (2020/ACS 5-year est.)

• Under 18: ~14–16%
• 18–64: ~55–58%
• 65 and over: ~28–31%
• Median age: ~52–55 years

Gender (2020 DHC/ACS est.)

• Male: ~52–53%
• Female: ~47–48%

Racial/ethnic composition (2020 Census; race alone or in combination; Hispanic can be any race)

• Non-Hispanic White: ~80–85%
• Hispanic or Latino: ~8–10%
• Two or more races: ~5–7%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~2–3%
• Asian: <1%
• Black or African American: <1%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0%

Households and housing (2020 DHC/ACS 5-year est.)

• Households: ~1,500–1,600
• Average household size: ~2.0–2.1 persons
• Family households: ~58–62% of households
• Owner-occupied share: ~70–78%; renter-occupied: ~22–30%
• Housing units: ~3,000–3,500, with a high share of seasonal/recreational units; vacancy rate well above the U.S. average

Key insights

• Very small, rural county with a markedly older age profile and small household sizes.
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with modest Hispanic and multiracial populations.
• High homeownership and a large seasonal/second-home housing stock contribute to high vacancy rates.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (DHC, PL 94-171); American Community Survey 5-year estimates (most recent available); Population Estimates Program (2023).

Sierra County, CA snapshot (best-available 2023–2024 estimates)

• Population ≈3,300; density ≈3.4 residents per sq. mile across mountainous terrain, which raises last‑mile costs and limits fixed broadband buildout.
• Estimated email users: ≈2,400 residents (about 90% of adults, ~73% of total population).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–29: 10% (~240)
  • 30–49: 25% (~600)
  • 50–64: 32% (~770)
  • 65+: 33% (~790) This skew reflects the county’s older age profile.
• Gender split among email users: ~50% female, ~50% male.
• Digital access and connectivity:
  • Home broadband subscription: ≈70–80% of households; remaining homes rely on mobile data, satellite, fixed wireless, or go without service.
  • Smartphone adoption: ≈80–90% of adults; smartphone‑only internet households ≈10–15%.
  • Coverage is strongest along SR‑49/SR‑89 corridors and town centers (e.g., Loyalton, Downieville); fiber presence is limited, and terrain causes dead zones in canyons/forest areas.
  • Seasonal weather and wildfire risks can intermittently affect reliability.

Insights: Email is near‑universal among connected adults, especially for government services, healthcare, and commerce. The primary constraint is infrastructure, not willingness to use email; investments in fiber backbones and resilient last‑mile options would raise adoption and reliability.

Sierra County, CA mobile phone usage summary (focus on what differs from statewide patterns)

Baseline context

• Population: 3,236 (2020 U.S. Census) spread over ~953 square miles; one of California’s most rural and mountainous counties. Median age is notably higher than the state average, with roughly 30% of residents age 65+.

User estimates (2025, resident-based)

• Active mobile phone users (any mobile phone): ~2,750 residents, about 85% of the population. Method: rural adult cellphone ownership is near-universal but a few points below urban areas, with additional uptake among older teens.
• Smartphone users: ~2,300 residents (about 71% of total population). Method: ~90% of ages 18–64 and ~70% of ages 65+ using smartphones, weighted by Sierra County’s older age structure.
• Wireless-only households (no landline): ~60% of households, materially below California’s ~70–75% range. Rural coverage gaps and an older population keep landlines in use more than statewide.

Demographic breakdown of usage

• Age:
  • Adults 18–64: Highest smartphone penetration (~90%); most are data-centric users where coverage allows.
  • Seniors 65+: Smartphone adoption ~70%—5–10 points lower than the state. A visible minority still use voice/text-centric devices; more reliance on larger-font/basic phones than statewide.
  • Teens: High smartphone uptake (≈90% among ages 13–17), but the county has a small teen cohort; absolute numbers are modest compared with urban counties.
• Income and work patterns:
  • More residents rely on mobile data as a primary internet option where fixed broadband is limited, but indoor coverage variability drives heavy dependence on home Wi‑Fi and Wi‑Fi calling when available.
  • Remote work and high-usage streaming are concentrated in the Sierra Valley and town centers; canyon and forest communities show lighter, reliability-driven usage.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage pattern: Service concentrates along SR‑49 and SR‑89 and in/around Loyalton, Sierraville, Calpine, Downieville, and Sierra City. Deep canyons and forested terrain create persistent no‑service or marginal-signal zones between towns.
• Carrier landscape:
  • Verizon: Broadest geographic LTE coverage and the most reliable rural footprint.
  • AT&T: Solid along major corridors and in towns; FirstNet has improved emergency-route coverage.
  • T‑Mobile: Usable in Sierra Valley and near county lines; limited elsewhere due to terrain and sparser site density.
• 5G: Present primarily in and around Sierra Valley towns and select highway segments; coverage is far less comprehensive than California’s urban counties. Most outlying areas remain LTE-only.
• Backhaul and fiber:
  • Plumas‑Sierra Telecommunications has deployed fiber in parts of Sierra Valley (improving backhaul for nearby mobile sites and enabling strong Wi‑Fi offload).
  • California’s middle‑mile buildouts traversing the region are improving resilience, but many hilltop sites still rely on microwave backhaul, which can constrain capacity during peak periods.
• Reliability: Power shutoffs, wildfires, and backhaul fiber cuts can cause localized outages. Generators exist on some macro sites, but not universally.

How Sierra County differs from California overall

• Lower smartphone penetration and higher basic‑phone retention among seniors than the state average, tied to both demographics and patchy coverage.
• Fewer wireless‑only households than statewide; landline retention remains comparatively high.
• 5G availability and use are substantially below California’s urban/suburban norm; LTE remains the workhorse technology.
• Heavier reliance on Wi‑Fi calling and offline use in fringe‑coverage areas; more pronounced weekend/seasonal congestion from recreation and tourism than typical urban counties.
• Network performance variability is driven far more by topography and backhaul constraints than by sheer user density, the reverse of many California metros.

Key takeaways

• Expect about 2,750 resident mobile users and ~2,300 resident smartphone users, with adoption strongest in the Sierra Valley and towns and weakest in canyon/forest communities.
• Coverage and capacity are highly corridor- and town-centric; LTE dominates outside a few 5G pockets.
• Compared with statewide norms, Sierra County users are older on average, keep landlines more often, and depend more on Wi‑Fi calling and LTE than on mid‑band 5G.

Social media in Sierra County, CA — short breakdown (2025)

County context

• Population: 3,236 (2020 Census), very rural and older-leaning age profile compared with California overall.
• Data note: No county-specific social media survey exists. Figures below are modeled estimates calibrated to Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. platform adoption, rural usage patterns, and Sierra County’s older age structure. Use as directional, not exact headcounts.

Overall usage

• Adults using at least one social platform: ~75–80% of adults
• Primary access: smartphones; home broadband adoption trails the state average, so mobile-friendly content performs best

Most-used platforms (share of adults, estimated)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 70–75%
• Instagram: 20–30%
• Pinterest: 20–25% (higher among women)
• WhatsApp: 15–20%
• Nextdoor: 15–20% (hyperlocal utility is high in rural areas)
• TikTok: 12–18%
• Snapchat: 10–14%
• X (Twitter): 10–13%
• Reddit: 8–12%
• LinkedIn: 8–12%

Age-group profile of local users (share of local adult social media users, estimated)

• 18–29: ~12–15% of users; platform mix: YouTube 90%+, Instagram ~75–80%, TikTok ~60–65%, Snapchat ~60–65%, Facebook ~35–40%
• 30–49: ~25–30%; YouTube ~90%, Facebook ~70–75%, Instagram ~45–50%, TikTok ~30–35%
• 50–64: ~28–32%; Facebook ~70%, YouTube ~80%, Instagram ~25–30%, TikTok ~18–22%, Nextdoor ~20–25%
• 65+: ~25–30%; Facebook ~55–60%, YouTube ~45–55%, Instagram ~12–18%, TikTok ~8–12%, Nextdoor ~18–22%

Gender breakdown (behavioral tendencies)

• Women: more likely to use Facebook (+5–7 percentage points vs men), Instagram (+~5 pp), and Pinterest (substantial skew)
• Men: more likely on YouTube (+5–10 pp), Reddit (+4–6 pp), and X (+2–4 pp)

Behavioral trends in Sierra County’s context

• Facebook Groups/Pages are the hub for hyperlocal info (road closures, wildfire/snow updates, school and event notices) and Marketplace/swaps
• Nextdoor adoption is notable for neighborhood alerts, public safety, and municipal notices
• YouTube is heavily used for DIY, home/auto/outdoor tips, and meeting recordings/briefings where available
• Messaging relies on Facebook Messenger and SMS; WhatsApp used within family/affinity networks
• Content preferences: concise posts, photo-heavy updates, and short videos; data-light formats perform better given patchy broadband
• Seasonal spikes: winter storms and wildfire season drive sharp increases in local information seeking
• Engagement windows: strongest before work (6–8 a.m.) and evenings (6–9 p.m.); weekend late mornings also active

Key takeaways

• Facebook and YouTube dominate reach; Instagram and TikTok are meaningful but cohort-specific
• Older-skewing population lifts Facebook/Nextdoor and tempers TikTok/Snapchat penetration
• Hyperlocal utility and reliability (alerts, road and weather conditions, community resources) drive engagement more than entertainment content