Kit Carson County Local Demographic Profile

Kit Carson County, Colorado — key demographics

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

Population size

  • Total population: 7,128 (2020 Census)
  • ACS 2019–2023 estimated population: ~7,100

Age

  • Median age: ~37–38 years
  • Under 18: ~26%
  • 18–64: ~58%
  • 65 and over: ~16%

Gender

  • Male: ~53%
  • Female: ~47%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS, shares of total population)

  • White, non-Hispanic: ~62–66%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~25–30%
  • Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1%
  • Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.5–1%
  • Two or more races and other, non-Hispanic: ~5–7%

Households and housing

  • Total households: ~2,600–2,800
  • Average household size: ~2.5–2.6 persons
  • Family households: ~65–70% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~30–35%
  • Married-couple households: ~50–55% of households
  • Living alone: ~25–30% of households
  • Housing units: ~3,000–3,200
  • Owner-occupied rate: ~65–70%

Insights

  • Small, rural county with stable population around 7,100.
  • Majority White non-Hispanic with a sizable Hispanic/Latino community (about one-quarter to one-third of residents).
  • Slight male majority and a relatively balanced age structure with roughly one-quarter children and a mid-teens share of seniors.
  • Household structure is family-oriented with typical rural homeownership levels around two-thirds and average household size near 2.6.

Email Usage in Kit Carson County

  • Scope: Kit Carson County, Colorado (pop. ≈7,100; area ≈2,162 sq mi; density ≈3.3 people/sq mi). I‑70 and US‑385 provide the primary connectivity corridor.
  • Estimated email users: ≈4,600 residents (≈65% of total population; ≈81% of adults), derived from age-specific internet use and the share of internet users who use email.
  • Age distribution of email users:
    • 18–34: ≈1,230 (27%)
    • 35–64: ≈2,235 (48%)
    • 65+: ≈784 (17%)
    • Teens 13–17: ≈373 (8%)
  • Gender split among email users: ≈51% male, 49% female, reflecting minimal gender differences in email adoption.
  • Digital access and trends:
    • ≈83% of households subscribe to broadband; ≈90% have a computer; ≈13% are smartphone‑only.
    • Connectivity is strongest in and around Burlington (and other towns such as Stratton and Flagler) where cable/fiber deliver 100 Mbps+; outlying farms and ranches rely more on fixed wireless and satellite.
    • 4G/5G coverage is robust along I‑70 and major highways, with speeds and reliability declining on section-line roads farther from towers.
  • Insight: The county’s very low population density and distance from backbones create a persistent rural gap, but corridor fiber and cellular upgrades are steadily lifting email and general internet adoption.

Mobile Phone Usage in Kit Carson County

Mobile phone usage in Kit Carson County, CO — summary

Baseline and user estimates

  • Population anchor: 7,087 residents in the 2020 Census.
  • Adult smartphone users: approximately 4,400–4,700 adults use a smartphone (based on rural smartphone adoption in the low‑to‑mid 80% range and the county’s age mix).
  • Teen smartphone users (13–17): about 480–520 teens use a smartphone.
  • Combined smartphone users: roughly 4,900–5,200 residents actively use a smartphone.
  • Mobile‑internet‑only households: about 550–650 of the county’s roughly 2,700 households rely primarily on cellular data for home internet, a materially higher share than Colorado overall.

Demographic usage patterns (what stands out locally)

  • Age: Near‑universal use among younger adults and teens; markedly lower ownership among seniors 65+. The senior gap is wider than the state average, pulling down countywide smartphone penetration.
  • Income and occupation: A larger share of agricultural and trades workers rely on mobile data for work coordination, field navigation, and messaging, increasing daytime mobile traffic around farm and highway corridors compared with urban Colorado.
  • Hispanic residents: With roughly one in five residents identifying as Hispanic/Latino, mobile‑first internet use is more common in this group than the county average, boosting overall mobile dependence versus the state mix.

Digital infrastructure snapshot

  • Networks present: Verizon, AT&T, T‑Mobile, and regional carrier Viaero Wireless operate in the county; Viaero’s footprint is notably relevant here compared with the Colorado average where it is minor.
  • 5G footprint: Continuous 5G coverage primarily tracks the I‑70 corridor (Burlington–Stratton–Flagler) and US‑385/US‑24 junctions; outside these corridors, service is predominantly 4G LTE with pockets of weaker signal on section roads and in draws.
  • Capacity and tower spacing: Macro sites are sited along I‑70, US‑385, and near town centers, with wider inter‑site distances than Front Range counties, which limits peak speeds and indoor penetration off‑corridor.
  • Backhaul and fiber: Eastern Slope Rural Telephone’s fiber in and around towns (and transport routes along I‑70) underpins carrier backhaul, improving performance in Burlington/Stratton/Flagler compared with outlying areas.
  • Public and anchor connectivity: Libraries, schools, and county facilities act as key Wi‑Fi offload points in Burlington, Stratton, and Flagler; this offload pattern is more pronounced than in metro Colorado.

How Kit Carson County differs from Colorado statewide

  • Higher mobile reliance at home: A larger share of households use cellular as their primary or fallback home internet than the state average, reflecting sparser fixed‑line options outside town limits.
  • Narrower mid‑band 5G access: 5G coverage is corridor‑centric; outside those areas users are on LTE more often than the state average, which lowers typical speeds and capacity relative to Front Range counties.
  • Regional carrier relevance: Viaero holds meaningful market share locally, unlike most of the state where national carriers dominate almost exclusively.
  • Larger rural performance gap: Signal reliability and throughput drop more sharply with distance from highways than is typical statewide, making devices and plans that support Wi‑Fi calling and band aggregation more consequential to user experience.
  • Older device mix: A higher proportion of users retain LTE‑only or older 5G devices compared with Colorado overall, slowing migration to newer 5G features.
  • Work‑driven mobility: Agricultural and logistics activity concentrates mobile usage along I‑70 and farm‑to‑market routes at peak times, a pattern less visible in urban counties.

Key takeaways

  • About five thousand residents in Kit Carson County use smartphones, with mobile‑internet‑only households numbering in the high hundreds—both higher, proportionally, than Colorado overall.
  • 5G is strong along I‑70 but gives way to LTE and coverage gaps off‑corridor; the regional carrier Viaero plays a larger role than elsewhere in the state.
  • Age structure, occupational mix, and fixed‑broadband constraints combine to produce greater mobile dependence and more pronounced urban‑rural performance differences than the Colorado average.

Social Media Trends in Kit Carson County

Social media usage in Kit Carson County, CO (2025 snapshot)

How these figures should be read

  • The county has a small, rural population; there is no official platform-by-county census. The percentages below are modeled for Kit Carson County using the latest Pew Research Center national/rural usage rates (2023–2024) applied to a rural demographic profile. They represent expected shares of local residents in each group who use each platform.

Overall user stats

  • Adults using any social media: about 72% of adults
  • Teens (13–17) using at least one social platform: about 95%
  • Device/broadband context (rural pattern): smartphone adoption high; home broadband somewhat lower than urban areas. Practical effect: heavy mobile-first usage, evening peaks, and reliance on Facebook/YouTube over text-heavy platforms.

Most-used platforms (estimated share of local adults who use each)

  • YouTube: 82–83%
  • Facebook: 68–70%
  • Instagram: ~44–47%
  • TikTok: ~30–33%
  • Snapchat: ~28–30%
  • Pinterest: ~33–35%
  • LinkedIn: ~22–30% (lower end typical for rural areas)
  • X (Twitter): ~19–22% (lower in rural areas)
  • WhatsApp: ~18–21%
  • Reddit: ~17–22% (skews younger/male)

Age-group patterns (share within each age group who use the platform)

  • Ages 18–29: YouTube ~93%, Instagram ~78%, Snapchat ~65%, TikTok ~62%, Facebook ~33%
  • Ages 30–49: YouTube ~91%, Facebook ~72%, Instagram ~49%, TikTok ~39%, LinkedIn ~36%
  • Ages 50–64: Facebook ~73%, YouTube ~83%, Pinterest ~40%, Instagram ~29%
  • Ages 65+: Facebook ~50%, YouTube ~49%, Pinterest ~18% (TikTok/Instagram materially lower)
  • Teens 13–17: YouTube ~95%, TikTok ~67%, Snapchat ~60%, Instagram ~59%, Facebook ~33%

Gender breakdown (directional patterns most relevant locally)

  • Overall adoption is similar by gender; the skew shows up by platform:
    • Pinterest: women ~50% vs men ~21% (strong female skew)
    • Reddit: men ~25% vs women ~8% (strong male skew)
    • X (Twitter): modest male skew; LinkedIn modestly male; Snapchat and Instagram modestly female
    • Facebook and YouTube are broadly used by both genders with near-parity

Behavioral trends observed in rural counties like Kit Carson (high confidence applicability locally)

  • Facebook as the community hub: Heavy use of Groups, local news alerts (schools, county offices, fairs, 4‑H), buy/sell via Marketplace, church and civic updates. Engagement is strongest in early morning and evenings.
  • YouTube for utility and learning: Farm and ranch how‑tos, equipment repair, weather explainers, commodity market commentary, and long-form sermons or school events. Casting to TV in the evening is common.
  • Short-form video growth but age‑split: Reels/TikTok consumption is rising among under‑40s; over‑50s remain Facebook-first with some YouTube Shorts adoption.
  • Messaging ecosystems: Facebook Messenger is near‑default for family and local coordination; Snapchat dominates teen/young‑adult messaging; WhatsApp is secondary and more common for cross-border or out‑of‑area family ties.
  • Local commerce: Marketplace and local buy/sell groups outperform national e‑commerce for secondhand goods and services. Instagram helps small boutiques, salons, and seasonal events via Stories/Reels.
  • News and emergencies: Sheriff’s office, schools, and county agencies primarily post on Facebook; timely posts see high resharing within groups.
  • Connectivity-driven habits: Patchy home broadband shifts usage to mobile; content that loads fast and communicates clearly without sound (captions, simple graphics) performs better.

Key sources underpinning the estimates

  • Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (U.S. adults, with rural/age/gender cuts)
  • Pew Research Center, Teens, Social Media and Technology 2023 (U.S. teens 13–17)

These figures provide a practical, county-specific baseline for planning outreach, content, or ads: prioritize Facebook and YouTube for broad adult reach, lean on Instagram/Snapchat/TikTok for under‑40s, and use Facebook Groups/Marketplace plus short, captioned video for the best engagement.