Crowley County

To give you precise, current figures, which source/year would you prefer?

• 2020 Decennial Census (official counts), or
• 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates (most recent, with margins of error)

Also, Crowley County’s large incarcerated population heavily skews age/sex and some race/ethnicity metrics. Do you want stats for the total population (including institutionalized) or for the household (noninstitutionalized) population only?

Here’s a practical, research‑based estimate for Crowley County, CO (rural, pop. ~6,000; ~7–8 people/sq. mile).

Estimated email users

• Total: ~2,200–3,000 regular users.
• Method: County has two large prisons; ~2,500–3,000 people are incarcerated (very limited email). Among the ~3,000–3,500 non‑institutional residents, 75–85% of adults use email (Pew/ACS rural adoption patterns).

Age distribution of email users (approx.)

• 18–29: 15–20%
• 30–49: 30–35%
• 50–64: 25–30%
• 65+: 15–20% Notes: Usage is near‑universal for 30–49, high for 50–64, and somewhat lower but rising among 65+.

Gender split

• Overall county population skews male (prisons). Among civilian email users: roughly balanced, ~48–52% female vs. male.

Digital access and trends

• Home broadband subscription: ~65–75% of households; 15–25% are smartphone‑only.
• Connectivity improves in towns (Ordway, Olney Springs, Sugar City); patchier in outlying farm areas.
• Fixed wireless and satellite fill gaps; mobile coverage strongest along main corridors.
• Library/school/county Wi‑Fi are important access points.
• With ACP funding paused, affordability pressures may raise churn in 2025.

These figures are estimates derived from ACS/Pew rural usage patterns plus local incarceration-adjusted population.

Mobile phone usage in Crowley County, CO — summary (focus on how it differs from the state)

Quick context and method

• Crowley County is very small (~6,000 residents in 2020) and hosts two correctional facilities, so a large share of the counted population is incarcerated. Inmates do not use personal mobile phones, which materially reduces the resident mobile market compared with raw population.
• Estimates below use 2020 Census population, typical incarceration share for the county, and rural U.S./Colorado adoption benchmarks to produce ranges.

Estimated user base

• Non‑institutionalized residents: roughly 2,500–3,500 of the ~6,000 counted residents.
• Adult (18+) non‑institutionalized residents: ~1,900–2,600.
• Resident smartphone users: ~1,600–2,200.
• Resident mobile phone users (any handset): ~1,800–2,500.
• Active consumer handset lines registered to county addresses: ~2,500–4,000, plus several hundred data‑only lines (hotspots/tablets) used for home internet or farm/enterprise.
• Mobile‑only internet households: likely 25–35% (vs ~15–20% statewide), reflecting limited fixed broadband.

Demographic factors that shape usage

• Incarceration effect: A large, mostly male 18–44 population is present in statistics but not in the mobile market; this makes per‑capita subscription and smartphone‑adoption rates look lower than Colorado overall.
• Age: The resident (non‑institutionalized) population skews older than the state average, so there’s a higher share of basic/flip phones and lower smartphone adoption among seniors than in metro Colorado.
• Income and affordability: Median household income is well below the state average; prepaid and MVNO plans, older devices, and BYOD are more common than in urban Front Range counties.
• Race/ethnicity: Countywide figures show higher shares of Hispanic and Black residents than the Colorado average, but that is partly driven by the prison population. Among non‑institutionalized residents, Hispanic share is still above the state average; messaging apps (e.g., WhatsApp) and bilingual support see relatively higher use.
• Workforce flows: Many correctional and agricultural workers commute from neighboring counties, adding daytime network load without increasing resident subscriptions.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carrier presence: In addition to AT&T, T‑Mobile, and Verizon, regional carrier Viaero Wireless has an outsized footprint and market share on the eastern plains, including Crowley—unlike most of urban Colorado.
• Coverage pattern: Best in and around Ordway, Olney Springs, Sugar City, and along CO‑96; coverage thins between towns and on farm/range roads. Indoor coverage can be inconsistent in metal buildings and older homes.
• 5G status: Low‑band 5G from national carriers is generally present; mid‑band 5G (T‑Mobile n41, Verizon/AT&T C‑band) is sparse or absent, so LTE remains the workhorse for capacity.
• Typical performance: Roughly 10–60 Mbps down in town centers; single‑digit to low‑teens Mbps in outlying areas, with congestion during school hours and correctional shift changes.
• Backhaul and last‑mile: Anchor institutions commonly have fiber; residential fiber is rare. Many households rely on DSL or fixed wireless; LTE hotspots are a frequent substitute for home broadband. Local/regional WISPs use CBRS (3.5 GHz) and 2.5 GHz where available.
• Public safety: AT&T FirstNet covers key sites; LMR remains primary for responders with LTE as data back‑up.

How Crowley County differs from Colorado overall

• Apparent penetration: Because so many counted residents are incarcerated, per‑capita mobile subscriptions and smartphone ownership appear much lower than the state, even as non‑institutionalized households use mobiles heavily.
• Access reliance: A materially higher share of households depend on mobile data/hotspots for home internet than statewide.
• Carrier mix: Regional carrier (Viaero) has meaningful share here; Front Range counties are dominated by the national three.
• Network build: Coverage is prioritized over capacity; mid‑band 5G rollouts and dense small‑cell builds lag far behind metro areas.
• Plans and devices: Greater reliance on prepaid/MVNO, older or budget Android handsets, and secondhand iPhones; device financing uptake is lower than in urban Colorado.

Notes and caveats

• Ranges reflect the uncertainty of the incarcerated share at any given time and the small base population. If you have a specific year or administrative counts (e.g., current facility populations), the estimates can be tightened.

Crowley County, CO — social media snapshot (2025, estimates)

Important context

• Crowley County’s official population includes a large incarcerated (mostly male) population that does not use social media. Estimates below refer to the non-institutional population.

User stats

• Reachable population (13+): roughly 3,200–4,000 people
• Active social media users: about 2,600–3,400 monthly (70–75% of non-institutional adults; 85–90% of teens)
• Device mix: mobile-first (>90% of activity), with many on limited/variable broadband; short video and light-weight media perform best

Most-used platforms (adults 18+, share using at least monthly)

• YouTube: 70–80% (about 40–50% daily)
• Facebook: 60–70% (about 45–55% daily); Messenger 55–65%
• Instagram: 22–30% (12–18% daily)
• TikTok: 18–25% (10–15% daily)
• Snapchat: 18–25% overall; 60–70% among ages 13–24
• Pinterest: 20–28% (skews women 25–54)
• X/Twitter: 8–12% (light engagement)
• LinkedIn: 8–12% (concentrated among educators, healthcare, government)
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (mainly in Ordway and nearby towns; coverage is patchy)

Age mix among local social media users (share of users)

• 13–17: 8–10%
• 18–24: 10–12%
• 25–34: 15–18%
• 35–44: 18–22%
• 45–54: 15–18%
• 55–64: 12–15%
• 65+: 12–16%

Gender breakdown among users

• Female: 54% (±3)
• Male: 46% (±3) Notes: Women over-index on Facebook and Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube. The local non-institutional population skews a bit older and more female than the county’s headline totals.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first: Heavy use of Facebook Groups and local pages (schools, churches, county/city, volunteer fire, youth sports). Information and trust flow through familiar local admins.
• Marketplace culture: Facebook Marketplace is a primary channel for buy/sell/trade, farm/ranch equipment, seasonal work, and housing.
• Local news and alerts: Weather, road closures, wildfire/drought updates, school announcements drive spikes. County and school district posts get strong organic reach when timely.
• Short-form video growth: TikTok and Reels are rising among under-40s; practical content (repairs, DIY, ag tips) outperforms trend-only posts.
• Youth patterns: Teens/young adults split time between Snapchat (messaging/stories) and TikTok; Instagram for events and social proof.
• Messaging over comments: Many prefer DM (Messenger/WhatsApp) for inquiries—include clear call-to-message.
• Timing: Best engagement windows are early morning (6–8 a.m.), lunch (12–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–10 p.m.). Weekends see strong Marketplace and event interest.
• Creative that works: Real people and places (fields, Main Street, school teams), straight-to-the-point captions, bilingual where relevant, and clear utility (dates, prices, how-to).
• Platform gaps: X/Twitter and LinkedIn have niche use; Nextdoor reach is limited and varies by neighborhood availability.

Method note

• No official platform-by-platform stats exist at the county level. Figures are synthesized from Pew Research (rural U.S. usage), Colorado/rural adoption patterns, and typical platform ad-reach benchmarks, adjusted for Crowley County’s non-institutional population and age mix. Consider validating exact reach via platform ad tools (Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat) for current counts.