Sedgwick County

Sedgwick County, Colorado — key demographics

Population

• Total population: 2,404 (2020 Decennial Census)
• Recent trend: modest decline since 2010; 2023 Census estimate roughly mid‑2,200s (Population Estimates Program)

Age

• Median age: about 45–46 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~21%
• 18–64: ~58%
• 65 and older: ~21–24%

Sex

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race and ethnicity (Hispanic can be of any race; ACS 2019–2023)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~82–85%
• Hispanic or Latino: ~12–15%
• Black or African American: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
• Asian: <1%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%

Households and housing (ACS 2019–2023)

• Households: ~1,000–1,050
• Average household size: ~2.1–2.2 persons
• Family households: ~58–60% of households
• Owner-occupied housing: ~70–75% of occupied units
• Households with children under 18: ~25%
• Households with someone age 65+: roughly one-third

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

• Population and density: Sedgwick County, CO has about 2,400 residents over ~548 sq mi (≈4.4 people/sq mi), with most households clustered around Julesburg and Ovid.
• Estimated email users: ~1,730 residents actively use email (assumes ~86% age 13+, ~88% internet use, and ~95% email adoption among internet users).
• Age distribution of email users (share of users): 13–17: ~5%; 18–34: ~24%; 35–64: ~52%; 65+: ~19%. Median age in the county skews mid‑40s, lifting the 35–64 share.
• Gender split among email users: ~51% male, ~49% female (consistent with county’s slight male majority and near‑parity digital adoption by gender).
• Digital access and usage:
  • Home broadband subscription: ~75% of households; mobile‑only internet: ~15%.
  • Device access: ~80%+ of households have a computer; smartphone access is widespread and often primary in outlying areas.
  • Email engagement is near‑universal among working‑age adults; seniors participate at slightly lower rates but rising with telehealth and government services.
• Connectivity context: Low population density increases last‑mile costs, so high‑speed service is strongest along the I‑76/Julesburg corridor; outside towns, residents frequently rely on fixed wireless or satellite. Public library and school Wi‑Fi serve as important access points.

Mobile phone usage in Sedgwick County, Colorado (2025 snapshot)

Headline estimates

• Population and users: About 2,200–2,350 residents; an estimated 1,850–2,000 residents use a mobile phone (roughly 83–87% of all residents). Adults with a mobile phone: ~90–93%.
• Smartphones: ~1,500–1,650 resident smartphone users (about 68–74% of all residents; 82–88% of adults).
• Active mobile lines: Approximately 2,400–2,800 consumer lines in service (about 105–125 lines per 100 residents), reflecting personal phones plus a small share of work/IoT lines tied to agriculture and transportation.

How Sedgwick differs from Colorado overall

• Adoption is lower and more uneven: Adult smartphone ownership is roughly 5–10 percentage points below Colorado’s urbanized counties. Mobile-only internet households are notably higher here than statewide.
• Carrier mix skews rural: Verizon and AT&T hold a larger combined share than in Front Range counties; T-Mobile’s share is smaller but growing with 600 MHz 5G buildouts.
• 5G coverage is broad on paper but thin on capacity: Low-band 5G covers the towns and highway corridors; mid-band capacity is limited to the Julesburg/I‑76 corridor, so real-world speeds fall back to LTE or low-band 5G off-corridor more often than in metro Colorado.
• Prepaid and cost-conscious plans are more common: Prepaid penetration and MVNO usage are several points higher than the state average, reflecting income mix, seasonal work, and limited device upgrade cycles.
• Performance gap persists: Typical downlink speeds are lower and more variable than Colorado’s statewide urban averages, with bigger swings during travel peaks on I‑76 and during harvest.

Demographic breakdown (modeled for 2025)

• Age
  • 18–34: ~400–450 adults; smartphone ownership ~92–96% (≈370–430 users)
  • 35–54: ~550–600 adults; smartphone ownership ~88–92% (≈485–550 users)
  • 55–64: ~250–300 adults; smartphone ownership ~74–82% (≈185–245 users)
  • 65+: ~500–560 adults; smartphone ownership ~60–70% (≈300–390 users); another ~10–15% use feature phones
  • Under 18: A minority have their own device; teen smartphone access rates are materially below Front Range norms
• Income and plan type
  • Prepaid share: ~25–30% of lines (vs ~15–20% statewide), driven by price sensitivity and MVNO availability
  • Mobile-only internet households: ~16–20% (vs ~8–10% statewide), substituting for limited or costly wired broadband in some areas
• Work profile and usage
  • Agriculture and transport jobs raise daytime usage along farm operations and I‑76; voice/SMS and PTT-style apps remain more prominent than in metro counties
  • Older devices remain in service longer; a higher share of handsets are 3–4+ years old compared with the state average

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage pattern
  • Strongest along I‑76, Julesburg, Ovid, and Sedgwick towns; coverage thins on county roads and along river bottoms away from highway corridors
  • Low-band 5G (e.g., 600/700/850 MHz) provides broad outdoor coverage; mid-band 5G capacity is concentrated near Julesburg/I‑76
• Carriers and networks
  • Estimated primary-SIM market share: Verizon ~45–50%, AT&T ~30–35%, T‑Mobile ~15–20%, others/MVNOs ~3–5%
  • AT&T FirstNet is present on key sites serving public safety; roaming near the Nebraska line can still occur in fringe areas
• Speeds and reliability (typical user experience)
  • Towns and I‑76 corridor: ~50–150 Mbps down / 5–20 Mbps up on 5G or strong LTE; off‑corridor: ~5–25 Mbps down / 2–10 Mbps up with greater variability
  • Peak-time slowdowns are common during travel surges and harvest; metal-roof buildings frequently require Wi‑Fi calling or boosters for reliable indoor voice
• Sites and backhaul
  • Sparse macro-grid typical of the High Plains: roughly 1–2 macro sites per 100 square miles, with co-location across carriers; densification since 2022 has focused on upgrading existing structures rather than adding many new towers
  • Backhaul is a mix of microwave and fiber, with fiber anchored to I‑76 and town sites; backhaul constraints can cap peak throughput off the corridor

Key trends to watch (local vs state)

• Capacity, not just coverage: Sedgwick already has broad low-band 5G, but the gap with Colorado’s metro counties is now about mid-band capacity and fiber-fed sites; targeted upgrades along secondary roads and agricultural clusters would yield outsized gains.
• Mobile substitution: With the Affordable Connectivity Program wind-down, reliance on mobile plans and hotspotting likely ticked up locally, widening the mobile-only gap with the state average.
• Carrier competition: T‑Mobile’s extended-range 5G has reduced dead zones, but entrenched Verizon/AT&T signal reliability off the highway keeps their share higher here than statewide.
• Emergency communications: Priority services on AT&T’s FirstNet and carrier MCS/priority tiers see higher relative value given sparse infrastructure and long response distances.

These figures are 2025 modeled estimates synthesized from recent ACS county demographics, rural mobile adoption research, and current carrier coverage patterns in northeast Colorado. They are intended to give planning-grade magnitudes and highlight how Sedgwick’s usage and infrastructure diverge from Colorado’s statewide profile.

Social media usage in Sedgwick County, CO (small, rural county) aligns closely with rural U.S. patterns. County-specific platform counts are not published; the figures below are best-available, defensible estimates for adults in Sedgwick based on recent Pew Research Center findings for rural users and statewide rural patterns. Percentages indicate the share of adults who use each platform (users may use multiple platforms).

Overall usage

• Adults using at least one social platform: ~75–80%
• Primary access: mobile-first; rural broadband adoption is lower than urban areas, which nudges use toward short-form video and Facebook Groups

Most-used platforms (share of adults)

• YouTube: ~80–85%
• Facebook: ~65–75%
• Instagram: ~35–45%
• Pinterest: ~30–40%
• TikTok: ~25–35%
• Snapchat: ~20–30%
• X (Twitter): ~20–25%
• Reddit: ~10–20%
• LinkedIn: ~10–20%
• Nextdoor: ~5–10%

Age-group patterns (share of each age group using the platform at least occasionally)

• 18–29: Social media use >90%; YouTube ~95%; Instagram ~65–70%; Snapchat ~65–75%; TikTok ~60–70%; Facebook ~40–50%
• 30–49: Social media use ~85–90%; Facebook ~70–80%; YouTube ~85–90%; Instagram ~45–55%; TikTok ~30–40%; Snapchat ~25–35%; Pinterest ~35–45%
• 50–64: Social media use ~70–80%; Facebook ~70–75%; YouTube ~75–80%; Instagram ~25–35%; TikTok ~15–25%; Pinterest ~30–40%
• 65+: Social media use ~50–60%; Facebook ~55–65%; YouTube ~55–65%; others markedly lower

Gender breakdown (directional differences typical of rural areas)

• Women: Higher use of Facebook (+5–10 points vs men) and notably higher Pinterest use (often 2–3× men)
• Men: Higher use of YouTube (+5 points), Reddit (roughly 2× women), and X/Twitter (+3–5 points)

Behavioral trends observed in rural Great Plains counties and expected in Sedgwick

• Facebook as the community hub: heavy reliance on local Groups for buy/sell, school sports, events, obituaries, and local government or law enforcement updates; Messenger is a default communication tool
• Video-first consumption: YouTube for how-to, farm/ranch equipment, DIY, and weather explainers; TikTok shorts increasingly used for entertainment and quick local updates
• Younger cohort split: 18–29s favor Snapchat streaks and DMs for daily communication, Instagram for social graph, and TikTok for discovery; Facebook maintained mainly for groups and family
• News and information: local news primarily via Facebook pages/groups; X/Twitter used more passively for state/national headlines; Nextdoor has limited traction due to low population density
• Commerce and promotion: local businesses, churches, and schools prioritize Facebook; Instagram used for visuals by boutiques/food; marketplace activity is concentrated on Facebook, not Craigslist
• Posting cadence: engagement spikes in early morning and after-work evening windows; weekends see event-driven peaks (sports, fairs, community gatherings)

Notes on interpretation

• Figures are county-appropriate estimates derived from rural U.S. benchmarks (Pew Research Center 2024) and Colorado’s rural adoption patterns. They reflect share of adults using each platform at least occasionally; totals exceed 100% because users maintain multiple accounts.