Elbert County

Elbert County, Colorado – key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau)

Population

• 26,062 (2020 Census). ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates place it in the high-20,000s.

Age

• Median age: ~44 years
• Under 18: ~25%
• 18–64: ~60%
• 65 and over: ~15%

Gender

• Male: ~50%
• Female: ~50%

Race/ethnicity (Hispanic can be any race)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~86–89%
• Hispanic/Latino: ~7–9%
• Two or more races: ~3–5%
• Asian: ~1%
• Black/African American: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.5–1%

Households

• ~9,500–10,000 households
• Average household size: ~2.9
• Family households: ~75–80%
• Households with children under 18: ~35%
• Owner-occupied housing units: ~88–92%

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

Elbert County, CO overview (estimates; ACS 2018–2022, Census 2023, Pew Research)

• Population and density: ≈27,000 residents; about 15 people per square mile across 1,850+ sq mi (very low density).
• Estimated email users: 21,000–24,000. Method: rural internet adoption is high but not universal; among internet users, ~90%+ use email (Pew). Applying this to the county’s population yields the range.
• Age distribution (ACS-like profile): Under 18 ≈24–25%; 18–34 ≈18–19%; 35–54 ≈30–32%; 55–64 ≈12–14%; 65+ ≈13–15%. Email usage is highest among 18–64; slightly lower among 65+.
• Gender split: roughly even (about 50% female, 50% male). Email usage shows minimal gender gap, so users are similarly split.
• Digital access trends: Most households report a broadband subscription (roughly high-80s percent per ACS 5-year). Computer/device access is widespread, with some mobile-only households. Access is strongest in and around towns; outlying ranching areas rely more on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite. Connectivity and adoption have continued to improve since 2020 with remote work/schooling pressures.
• Local connectivity facts: Low settlement density and long loop lengths make wired service inconsistent outside population centers, contributing to higher reliance on wireless/satellite compared with urban Colorado.

Mobile phone usage in Elbert County, Colorado — summary with county-vs-state differences

Baseline and user estimates

• Population base: roughly 27,000–29,000 residents (2020 Census ~26k; modest growth since).
• Estimated mobile users: about 21,000–24,000 residents use a mobile phone (driven by very high adult ownership and high teen adoption).
• Active lines/SIMs: approximately 23,000–29,000 (phones plus hotspots, watches, tablets). Method: adult phone ownership ~95–98%, teen ownership >90%, limited adoption among younger children; plus multi‑device lines in higher‑income households.

Demographic profile of mobile users (approximate)

• Age mix skews older than Colorado overall: larger 45–64 and 65+ cohorts, but also a sizable share of school‑age children in family‑oriented subdivisions near Elizabeth/Kiowa.
• Income: median household income above the state average; more multi‑line family plans and accessory devices (watches, tablets, vehicle hotspots).
• Race/ethnicity: substantially higher share of non‑Hispanic White residents; smaller Hispanic and non‑White populations than statewide.
• Veterans and self‑employed/contractor presence is higher than statewide averages, contributing to daytime mobile use for work, dispatch, and payments.

Usage patterns and plan behavior (how Elbert differs from statewide)

• Carrier mix: stronger tilt toward Verizon and AT&T for perceived rural coverage and voice reliability; T‑Mobile grows where mid‑band 5G is present (Elizabeth/commuter corridors) but share is likely lower than in metro Front Range counties.
• Plan types: above‑average prevalence of family/shared plans and device financing; below‑average use of prepaid/bring‑your‑own MVNOs compared with urban Colorado (coverage and rural roaming concerns).
• On‑the‑road usage: heavier commute‑driven mobility (Denver/Castle Rock/Colorado Springs), with noticeable handoffs along CO‑86/CO‑83. Daytime loads migrate out of the county more than in metro areas.
• Home internet substitution: higher reliance on cellular hotspots, fixed wireless (including 5G home internet), and satellite in outlying areas; mobile data is more often a backup or primary link than in urban Colorado.
• Voice/SMS still matter: Wi‑Fi calling and signal boosters are common in fringe coverage zones; emergency alerts and voice reliability carry more weight than in well‑served urban neighborhoods.

Digital infrastructure snapshot

• Coverage pattern:
  • 4G LTE is generally solid in/around Elizabeth, Kiowa, Simla, and along CO‑86 and other primary roads; gaps persist on ranch land and in low‑lying or wooded areas.
  • 5G: widespread low‑band coverage; mid‑band 5G capacity is spotty and concentrated near population centers—far less dense than along the Denver/Boulder/Colorado Springs corridor.
• Capacity/backhaul: fewer macro sites per square mile than statewide; many rural sites depend on microwave or limited fiber backhaul, constraining peak speeds and resilience during power or backhaul outages.
• In‑home broadband context (impacts mobile use):
  • Limited cable plant; legacy DSL in some pockets; fiber appears mainly in newer subdivisions or via small rural telcos.
  • Fixed wireless providers and 5G home internet have meaningful uptake; Starlink adoption is notable in remote tracts.
• Public safety and resilience: wildfire and severe‑weather risk elevates the importance of roaming, backup power at sites, and priority services for first responders; residents often keep analog fallbacks (landlines, radios) in the most remote areas.

Key differences from Colorado state‑level trends

• Lower tower density and sparser mid‑band 5G than the Front Range metros; more dead zones away from highways.
• Higher reliance on cellular, fixed wireless, and satellite as primary/backup home internet compared with the state overall.
• Carrier preference skews toward Verizon/AT&T for coverage; statewide, T‑Mobile’s share is higher in urban cores.
• Plan mix favors family/postpaid with more accessory lines; prepaid/MVNO penetration is lower than in cities.
• Usage is shaped by long commutes and work‑on‑the‑road patterns rather than dense, stationary urban use.
• Demographics: older, higher‑income, and less diverse than statewide, affecting device mix (more premium smartphones and wearables) and willingness to pay for coverage.

Notes on uncertainty

• Figures are estimates synthesized from recent Census trends and national ownership/adoption benchmarks; exact carrier shares, tower counts, and 5G footprints shift frequently by neighborhood. For planning, validate address‑level coverage, backhaul, and ISP options, and check current FCC and carrier maps for build‑outs.

Below is a concise, county-tailored snapshot using the latest national platform adoption rates (Pew Research, 2024) scaled to Elbert County’s size and suburban–rural profile. Treat figures as estimates; local ad tools can refine them.

Headline user stats

• Population: ~27–28K
• Estimated social media users (all ages): ~19–22K
  • Adults (18+): ~80–85% use at least one platform
  • Teens (13–17): ~90–95% use at least one platform
• Daily users: ~12–15K (roughly 60–70% of residents use a platform daily)

Most-used platforms (estimated adult reach in Elbert County)

• YouTube: ~80–85% of adults
• Facebook: ~65–70%
• Instagram: ~45–50%
• TikTok: ~30–35%
• Pinterest: ~30–35% (skews female)
• Snapchat: ~20–25% (skews under 30)
• LinkedIn: ~20–25% (commuters/professionals)
• X/Twitter: ~18–22%
• Nextdoor: ~10–15% (varies by neighborhood density)

Age-group patterns

• Teens (13–17): Near-universal YouTube; heavy Snapchat/TikTok; Instagram strong; Facebook light.
• 18–29: YouTube near-universal; Instagram/Snap/TikTok are primary; Facebook used for events/Marketplace and groups.
• 30–49: Facebook + YouTube are core; Instagram meaningful; TikTok moderate; Pinterest strong among parents; local groups for info.
• 50–64: Facebook + YouTube dominate; lighter Instagram/TikTok; heavy use of Groups/Marketplace for local news and buy/sell.
• 65+: Facebook for family/community + YouTube; limited Instagram/TikTok.

Gender breakdown (tendencies)

• Women: More likely on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; high engagement in local Groups (schools, events, buy/sell).
• Men: More likely on YouTube, Reddit, X; strong interest in DIY, gear, ranch/farm, auto/outdoors; active in classifieds/Marketplace.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger widely used across ages; Snapchat messaging among under-30; WhatsApp moderate.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups (buy/sell/trade, lost & found, school/booster, neighborhood alerts) are highly active; Marketplace is a major local commerce channel.
• Video wins: Short-form video (Reels/Shorts/TikToks) outperforms static posts; captions matter due to sound-off viewing.
• Local discovery: Geotags and local hashtags (e.g., #ElizabethCO, #KiowaCO, #ElbertCounty) aid reach; word-of-mouth via shares is key to trust.
• Event spikes: School sports, county fair/4H/rodeo, weather/wildfire/road updates, and seasonal ranch/outdoor content drive bursts in attention and sharing.
• Timing: Peaks around 7–9 am, lunch hour, and 7–10 pm; weekends strong.
• Ad/practical tips: Geotarget Elizabeth/Kiowa/Elbert and the county’s fringe commuter zones; use Facebook/Instagram for reach + Groups/Marketplace placements; pair with short, authentic video; include phone/text CTAs for service and local business.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are modeled from national platform adoption rates and typical suburban–rural behavior, scaled to Elbert County’s population. For precise local percentages, validate with platform ad reach (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube) filtered to Elbert County ZIPs and towns.