Union County

Union County, Florida — key demographics (latest official data available)

Population

• Total population: 16,147 (2020 Census)
• Recent estimate: ~17,000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2023 estimate)

Age

• Median age: ~39 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~15%
• 18–64: ~77%
• 65 and over: ~8%

Sex

• Male: ~66%
• Female: ~34% Note: The county’s unusually high male share reflects a large incarcerated population.

Race and ethnicity

• White (non-Hispanic): ~57%
• Black or African American (non-Hispanic): ~34%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~7%
• Other/multiracial: ~2%

Households and housing

• Households: ~4,300
• Average household size: ~2.6
• Family households: ~70% of households; married-couple families ~50%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~75%

Key insight

• Demographic structure is notably shaped by the presence of multiple state correctional facilities, which increases the working-age and male shares and reduces the proportion of elderly and children relative to typical Florida counties.

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

• Scope: Union County, FL (pop. ≈16,150; land ≈244 sq mi; density ≈66 residents/sq mi).
• Estimated active email users (civilian adults): ≈8,800. Method: apply current U.S. adult email adoption to the county’s civilian, non‑institutional adult population (Union has a large incarcerated population that generally lacks personal email access).

Age distribution of email users (share of users; counts rounded):

• 18–34: 26% (2,300)
• 35–54: 34% (3,000)
• 55–64: 16% (1,400)
• 65+: 24% (2,100)

Gender split among email users:

• ≈54% female, 46% male (female-leaning because incarcerated residents are predominantly male and not typical email users).

Digital access and trends:

• Home broadband subscription: ~75–78% of households; mobile-only internet reliance: ~17–20%.
• Email is primarily accessed via smartphones; home broadband adoption trails the Florida average, especially outside Lake Butler.
• Wireline (cable/fiber) is concentrated along SR‑100/SR‑121 and in/near Lake Butler; fixed wireless and satellite serve outlying areas.
• 4G/5G coverage is strong on main corridors but attenuates in sparsely populated zones.
• Working-age cohorts exhibit near‑universal email use; seniors show slightly lower but solid adoption.

Notes: Figures are modeled from Census/ACS baselines and national email‑adoption rates, adjusted for Union County’s institutionalized population share.

Union County, Florida — mobile usage snapshot (2024)

Headline takeaways

• Union County’s residents depend on mobile phones for home internet at markedly higher rates than Florida overall, while enjoying less mid‑band 5G coverage and generally lower median speeds. Prepaid plans comprise a larger share of lines than the state average.

Population and user estimates

• Residents: ≈16.5k (2023 est.); households: ≈4.8k.
• Smartphone presence by household: 86–88% (ACS 2018–2022).
• Household cellular data subscriptions (any device on a cellular data plan): 79–82% (ACS 2018–2022).
• Smartphone‑only internet households (cellular data but no wired home broadband): 19–22% in Union County vs ~12–14% statewide.
• Active smartphone users: ≈10.8k–12.0k residents (derived from non‑institutionalized adult population and ACS smartphone rates).

Demographic usage patterns (how Union County differs from Florida)

• Age
  • 18–34: very high smartphone adoption (~95–97%), similar to state.
  • 35–64: high adoption (~88–92%), slightly below state.
  • 65+: 72–78% adoption, notably below the Florida rate (~80%+), with higher reliance on basic voice/text or shared plans.
• Income
  • < $35k/yr: smartphone‑only internet 28–32% (vs ~20% statewide), reflecting cost‑avoidance of wired broadband.
  • ≥ $75k/yr: smartphone‑only 8–12% (vs ~7–9% statewide).
• Race/ethnicity
  • Smartphone ownership is broadly high across groups (≥85% in White households; ~90%+ in Black and Hispanic households), but smartphone‑only internet is several points higher among Black and lower‑income households than county average.
• Plan mix
  • Prepaid share estimated at 38–45% of active lines (vs ~30–35% statewide), driven by price sensitivity and credit constraints.
  • Multi‑line family plans are less prevalent than in metro Florida; single‑line accounts are more common.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage
  • 4G LTE: near‑universal outdoor coverage across populated areas (≈98–99%).
  • 5G: low‑band/nationwide 5G is common on major corridors; mid‑band 5G (capacity layer) covers roughly 35–45% of the county’s population, well below Florida’s metro‑driven 5G mid‑band coverage (often 75–85%+).
• Capacity and speeds
  • Typical LTE speeds: 10–40 Mbps in-town; rural edges often single‑digit to teens, especially indoors.
  • 5G mid‑band (where available): 150–300 Mbps bursts; otherwise DSS/low‑band 5G often behaves like LTE (20–60 Mbps).
  • Median speeds trail Florida’s urban counties by a wide margin due to fewer sectors per site, longer inter‑site distances, and heavier load on single‑macro cells.
• Sites and density
  • Macro cellular sites: roughly a dozen to low‑teens registered towers countywide; tower density is sparse compared with Florida metro counties, yielding more dead zones in forested or low‑lying areas and weaker indoor penetration (metal‑roof homes exacerbate attenuation).
• Home internet via mobile
  • 5G fixed‑wireless availability (T‑Mobile/Verizon) reaches a substantial minority of addresses but is capacity‑managed; eligibility fluctuates more than in urban counties.
• Resilience
  • Storm‑related power outages can degrade service for multiple hours where generator back‑up is limited; restoration typically prioritizes corridor sites first (state routes and town centers).

What’s most different from Florida overall

• Higher mobile‑only internet dependence: +6–9 percentage points vs state.
• Lower mid‑band 5G coverage and lower median speeds, with bigger indoor coverage gaps.
• Greater reliance on prepaid and single‑line plans; fewer high‑capacity family bundles and premium postpaid tiers.
• Network build is corridor‑centric rather than density‑centric: solid coverage along state highways and in Lake Butler, thinner depth elsewhere.
• Device and plan churn is higher: cost‑driven switching among MVNOs and carriers occurs more frequently than in urban Florida.

Implications

• Policy and provider actions that expand mid‑band 5G and add sectors on existing towers would materially raise indoor reliability and throughput.
• Subsidies and ACP‑successors that offset wired broadband costs could reduce the county’s high smartphone‑only reliance and improve digital inclusion, especially for seniors and low‑income households.

Sources and derivation: U.S. Census ACS (2018–2022) S2801 for smartphone and cellular subscription indicators; carrier coverage disclosures and FCC Broadband Map for coverage characterization; rural usage patterns benchmarked to CTIA and state‑level datasets. Figures shown as point estimates or narrow ranges where county‑level sampling error warrants.

Social media usage in Union County, Florida (2024–2025 snapshot)

How these figures were derived

• County-level platform data is not directly published. The estimates below model Union County’s civilian, non-institutional population 13+ using the latest ACS age mix for small rural Florida counties, combined with 2024 Pew Research Center platform adoption by age, with rural adjustments. Treat numbers as best-available county-level estimates.

Overall usage

• Social media penetration (13+): 79–83% use at least monthly; 62–68% use daily
• Primary devices: mobile-first (smartphone), with growing YouTube viewing on connected TV
• Gender among social media users: female 52%, male 48% (note: the county’s total population skews male due to nearby correctional institutions, but incarcerated individuals are not active users)

Most-used platforms (share of 13+ who use the platform at least monthly; modeled)

• YouTube: 80–83%
• Facebook: 66–70%
• Instagram: 38–42%
• TikTok: 31–35%
• Pinterest: 24–29%
• Snapchat: 20–24%
• WhatsApp: 18–22%
• X (Twitter): 13–17%
• Reddit: 11–15%
• LinkedIn: 12–16%
• Nextdoor: 7–10%

Age-group penetration and audience mix

• Penetration by age (share using any social media at least monthly)
  • 13–17: 93–97%
  • 18–24: 94–97%
  • 25–34: 88–92%
  • 35–44: 83–88%
  • 45–54: 76–82%
  • 55–64: 70–76%
  • 65+: 56–61%
• Share of the county’s social media audience by age (composition of users)
  • 13–17: 7–9%
  • 18–24: 10–12%
  • 25–34: 16–19%
  • 35–44: 17–20%
  • 45–54: 16–18%
  • 55–64: 13–16%
  • 65+: 12–14%

Gender-by-platform tendencies (directional)

• Women over-index on Facebook and Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube and Reddit
• Instagram and TikTok skew female among 18–34; Snapchat skews youngest (13–24)

Behavioral trends observed in rural North Florida markets applicable to Union County

• Facebook as the local hub: high engagement with school, church, youth sports, county and city pages; Facebook Groups and Marketplace are central for community info and buy/sell
• Short-form video growth: Reels and TikTok drive discovery for local food, beauty, fitness, and small retail; cross-posting Reels to Facebook improves reach among 35+
• Video utility on YouTube: strong interest in DIY, auto repair, construction, hunting/fishing, small-engine and homestead content; increasing connected-TV viewing in the evenings
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the default; WhatsApp used within some family/work circles but not dominant
• Timing: engagement typically peaks on weekdays 6–9 pm; Marketplace and local updates see additional spikes weekend mornings
• Creative and offer response: practical, value-forward offers (discounts, giveaways, event reminders) outperform brand-only creative; posts with local faces/places and plain-language CTAs get higher comment/share rates
• Trust and proof: user reviews, neighbor recommendations, and recognizable local sponsors drive action more than polished ads; over-targeting by ZIP and using recognizable landmarks improves responses

Key takeaways

• To reach the broadest audience, prioritize Facebook (including Groups/Marketplace) and YouTube; add Instagram for 18–44 and TikTok for 13–34
• Lean into short-form video for discovery and YouTube for depth; schedule posts for early evening and weekend mornings
• Use community-first content and social proof; geo-target tightly around Lake Butler and population centers

Primary sources informing the model

• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (platform adoption by age and rural vs. urban)
• U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (age structure; civilian/non-institutional population)
• NTIA/ACS broadband and device adoption indicators for rural counties (to calibrate mobile-first behavior)