Washington County

Washington County, Colorado — Key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau)

Population

• Total population: 4,817 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age (ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates)

• Median age: ~44 years
• Under 18: ~24%
• 18 to 64: ~55%
• 65 and over: ~21%

Gender (ACS 2018–2022)

• Male: ~52%
• Female: ~48%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022)

• White alone: ~92–93%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~11–12%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
• Black or African American: <1%
• Asian: <1%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~1,950
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~64% of households
• Married-couple families: ~53% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~27%
• One-person households: ~27%
• 65+ living alone: ~13%
• Housing tenure (context for households): owner-occupied ~75–80%; renter-occupied ~20–25%

Insights

• Small, rural county with an older age profile (median age mid-40s).
• Predominantly White, with a modest Hispanic/Latino community.
• Slight male majority and a household mix dominated by married-couple and family households, with a notable share of single-person households.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (population count); 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and household characteristics).

Washington County, CO snapshot

• Population ~4,900; adults ~3,700. Estimated email users ≈3,330 (≈90% of adults).
• Age distribution of email users (share of users): 18–29: ~18%; 30–49: ~29%; 50–64: ~28%; 65+: ~26%. Seniors participate less than younger cohorts but are steadily gaining.
• Gender split among users: ~50% women, ~50% men; usage rates are effectively equal by gender.

Digital access trends

• About 75% of households maintain a broadband subscription; a notable minority are mobile-only or depend on fixed wireless/satellite, especially outside town centers.
• Adoption continues to rise slowly, with smartphone uptake helping bring more older and lower-income residents online, though gaps persist for the oldest ages and in the most remote areas.

Local density/connectivity facts

• Land area ~2,524 sq mi; population density ≈1.9 residents per square mile, among the sparsest in Colorado.
• Sparse settlement drives higher last‑mile costs and limited provider competition; speeds and choices are better in and near towns, while remote ranch/farm areas trail, shaping when and how residents access email.

Mobile phone usage in Washington County, Colorado — summary (using 2019–2023 ACS 5‑year device/subscription data and 2024 market context)

Context and user estimates

• Population and households: about 5,000 residents and roughly 2,100 households.
• Estimated adult smartphone users: approximately 3,300 adults (assumes ~83% adult smartphone ownership, consistent with rural ACS/Pew patterns and the county’s household smartphone rate).
• Mobile-reliant households: about 1 in 8 households are effectively smartphone-only for internet (smartphone and/or cellular data plan, no wired home broadband).

Device ownership and subscriptions (county vs. Colorado)

• Households with a smartphone: Washington County ~87%; Colorado ~91%.
• Households with any computer (desktop/laptop/tablet/smartphone): county ~92%; Colorado ~96%.
• Home internet subscription (any): county ~80–81%; Colorado ~87%.
• Cellular data plan (smartphone/tablet/other mobile device): county ~64%; Colorado ~58%.
• No home internet subscription: county ~14%; Colorado ~8%.
• Implication: smartphone ownership is moderately high but trails the state; reliance on cellular data is notably higher than the state average, and non-adoption of internet service is nearly double the state rate.

Demographic factors shaping mobile usage

• Older population share: 65+ is roughly 24% in the county vs ~16% statewide, contributing to lower smartphone uptake among seniors and a larger group of voice/text-first users.
• Income and education: median household income is substantially below the Colorado median and bachelor’s degree attainment is lower (roughly low‑20s% vs low‑40s% statewide). These correlate with higher prepaid usage, greater price sensitivity, and a higher incidence of smartphone‑only households.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Network mix: 4G LTE is the primary coverage layer across most of the county. Low‑band 5G (Verizon DSS, AT&T n5/FirstNet, T‑Mobile n71) is present in and around towns (e.g., Akron/Otis) and along major corridors (notably US‑34), while large agricultural areas remain 4G‑first.
• Mid‑band 5G: spotty and largely limited to population centers/corridors; wide‑area mid‑band (e.g., C‑band/n77, n41) is far less pervasive than in Colorado’s Front Range metros.
• mmWave 5G: effectively absent.
• Carriers: Verizon and AT&T generally provide the broadest rural footprint; T‑Mobile has strong low‑band 5G along corridors but more gaps off‑corridor than statewide averages.
• Public safety: AT&T FirstNet covers primary routes and towns; off‑grid ranchlands can see signal margins that favor external antennas/boosters.
• Backhaul/fiber: fiber backbones follow regional east‑plains corridors (including US‑34), with local rural telcos and co‑ops extending fiber in towns and some farm/ranch loops. Outside these, cellular sites often rely on longer backhaul hops, constraining mid‑band 5G density.
• Fixed wireless access (FWA): available in and near towns; coverage thins quickly with distance from towers. Where available, FWA is an important substitute for wired broadband.

How Washington County differs from statewide trends

• Higher cellular reliance: a larger share of households depend on smartphone/cellular data plans for primary internet access than the state average.
• More households offline: the share without any home internet is nearly double the Colorado rate.
• Slower 5G transition: low‑band 5G is present, but mid‑band 5G coverage and capacity upgrades are far behind metro Colorado; 4G remains the dominant experience countywide.
• Greater digital divide by geography: pronounced performance and availability gaps between towns/corridors and outlying farm/ranch areas, wider than typical statewide patterns.
• Older, more price‑sensitive base: a higher 65+ share and lower incomes translate to more basic plans, prepaid adoption, and slower device upgrade cycles than the state overall.
• Device mix skew: slightly fewer desktops/laptops and tablets than the state, keeping smartphones as the primary computing device for more residents.

Practical implications

• Mobile networks carry a larger share of “home internet” duty in Washington County than statewide; capacity and coverage enhancements (particularly mid‑band 5G and more sectorization) would have outsized impact.
• FWA and targeted fiber builds in and around towns produce immediate gains; off‑corridor coverage still benefits most from additional rural macro sites plus improved backhaul.
• Affordability programs (ACP successors, Lifeline, prepaid) and senior‑focused digital skills support align well with the county’s demographics and observed adoption patterns.

Below is a concise, decision-ready snapshot of social media usage in Washington County, Colorado. Figures are 2025 modeled estimates derived from the county’s rural profile and age mix (ACS 2023) applied to the latest platform benchmarks (Pew Research Center, 2024). Percentages refer to adults; platform shares are among local social media users.

Topline usage

• Adults who use at least one social platform: 71%
• Active user base: roughly 2,700–3,000 adults

Most‑used platforms (share of local social media users)

• YouTube: 92%
• Facebook: 85%
• Instagram: 45%
• Pinterest: 38%
• TikTok: 33%
• Snapchat: 29%
• WhatsApp: 24%
• X (Twitter): 16%
• LinkedIn: 13%
• Reddit: 12%
• Nextdoor: 8%

Age mix of the local social media audience

• 18–29: 20% of users
• 30–49: 35% of users
• 50–64: 27% of users
• 65+: 18% of users

Gender breakdown of the local social media audience

• Female: 51%
• Male: 49%

Behavioral trends and practical insights

• Community-first engagement: Facebook Groups and Pages drive daily check-ins for local news, schools, churches, county services, buy/sell/trade, ag and 4‑H updates. Nextdoor is comparatively minor; Facebook fills that role.
• Video is now default: Short vertical video (Facebook Reels, YouTube Shorts, TikTok) outperforms static posts for reach; how‑to, equipment maintenance, hunting/fishing, DIY, and local sports highlights do best.
• Event-driven spikes: County fair, school sports, harvest/calf seasons, severe weather, and road closures create noticeable short-term engagement surges on Facebook and YouTube.
• Messaging over comments: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat are preferred for quick coordination; public comment threads skew toward announcements and marketplace posts rather than debates.
• Time-of-day patterns: Highest activity clusters in early morning and evening; weekend mornings are strong for marketplace and events.
• Platform skews by audience:
  • Teens/younger adults: Snapchat and TikTok for daily chatter; Instagram for sports, style, and local highlights.
  • 30–49: Facebook for community and parenting/school info; YouTube for reviews/how‑to; Instagram for local businesses.
  • 50+: Facebook for community and marketplace; YouTube for tutorials, local church/school content; Pinterest for recipes, crafts, and home.

Notes on methodology and sources

• Modeled from Pew Research Center (2024) U.S. platform adoption, adjusted for rural usage patterns, and apportioned using Washington County’s age structure (ACS 2023). Counts are rounded to reflect modeling uncertainty.