Jefferson County

Jefferson County, Idaho — Key Demographics

• Population size

  • 2023 population estimate: ~34,800
  • 2020 Census: 30,891 (strong growth since 2020)

• Age

  • Median age: ~31
  • Under 18: ~32–33%
  • 65 and over: ~11%

• Gender

  • Female: ~49.5–49.7% (male: ~50.3–50.5%)

• Race and ethnicity (race alone unless noted; ethnicity can overlap)

  • White: ~92–93%
  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~17–18%
  • White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~76–77%
  • Two or more races: ~3%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native: ~0.6–0.8%
  • Asian: ~0.4–0.5%
  • Black or African American: ~0.3%
  • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: ~0.1%

• Household data

  • Households: ~10,000
  • Average household size: ~3.3–3.4 persons
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~84–85%

Notes

• Figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2023 Population Estimates; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; 2020 Census).

Jefferson County, ID — email usage snapshot (2024, modeled from U.S. Census/ACS and Pew adoption benchmarks)

• Estimated email users: ~23,000 residents age 13+ (about 70% of total population).
• Adult penetration: ~92% of adults use email; teens (13–17): ~90%.
• Age mix of email users: 13–17: 13%; 18–34: 32%; 35–64: 45%; 65+: 10%.
• Gender split among users: ~50% female, ~50% male.

Digital access and trends

• Household broadband subscription: ~89%.
• Households with a computer (any type): ~92%; smartphone‑only internet households: ~9%.
• Adoption has continued to rise since 2020, with rural gaps narrowing; fixed‑wireless remains a key option outside town centers.

Local density/connectivity facts

• Population ~33,000 spread over ~1,100 sq mi; density ~30 residents per sq mi, with higher concentrations in and around Rigby and along the US‑20 corridor.
• Town centers typically have cable/fiber options; outlying agricultural areas rely more on fixed‑wireless or legacy DSL.
• Mobile LTE/5G coverage is strong along US‑20/I‑15 and patchier in remote zones, influencing reliance on smartphone access.

Insights: Email is near‑universal among working‑age adults, with the 35–64 group comprising nearly half of users. Connectivity is best in denser corridors; improving broadband and widespread smartphones sustain high email engagement countywide.

Mobile phone usage in Jefferson County, Idaho — 2024 snapshot

Scale and user estimates

• Population and households: ~33,000 residents; ~9,500–10,000 households given the county’s larger-than-average household size.
• Mobile adoption: ~95–97% of residents use a mobile phone of some kind; ~85–90% are smartphone users. That translates to roughly 28,000–30,000 mobile users overall and 24,000–27,000 smartphone users.
• Wireless-only telephony: A clear majority of adults live in wireless-only households (no landline). The share is meaningfully higher than Idaho’s overall rate, reflecting the county’s younger age structure and rural norms.
• Lines per account: Higher-than-state-average multi-line family plans, driven by larger households. MVNO/prepaid share is also somewhat higher than in Idaho’s urban counties.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age: The county skews younger than Idaho overall (larger share under 18; median age low 30s), which lifts total mobile adoption and increases multi-line family plan prevalence. Teen smartphone adoption is high and increasingly earlier, but parental controls and content filters are widely used.
• Seniors: Smartphone adoption among residents 65+ trails the state average; basic phones and simplified plans remain more common outside town centers.
• Hispanic/Latino community: A sizable and growing share of residents are Hispanic/Latino, especially in farm and processing corridors. This raises demand for bilingual customer support, international calling features to Mexico/Central America, and prepaid options with flexible top-ups.
• Work patterns: Commuting to Idaho Falls and Rexburg concentrates peak-hour data demand on the US‑20 corridor; agricultural and logistics work drives sustained daytime usage in outlying tracts and greater reliance on voice/SMS and push-to-talk services during planting/harvest.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Macro coverage: 4G LTE is broadly available across populated areas. 5G coverage is established along US‑20 (Rigby–Menan–Ririe area) and near I‑15 around Roberts/Hamer, with mid-band capacity in and around town centers; coverage thins in the far-western agricultural tracts and lava butte terrain.
• Capacity and performance: In-town 5G typically delivers strong median speeds suitable for video and hotspot use. Speeds step down to LTE or spotty service in low-density farmland, with noticeable slowdowns during commute windows and in summer when tourist traffic to/through the US‑20 corridor spikes.
• Home internet via mobile: 5G fixed wireless access (e.g., T‑Mobile Home Internet, Verizon 5G Home where mid‑band is lit) is available in and near Rigby and other towns and has seen brisk uptake as an alternative to DSL or where cable/fiber are not present. Fixed wireless (licensed and unlicensed) from regional WISPs is widely used in outlying areas.
• Wireline anchors: Sparklight cable serves Rigby and adjacent towns; Mud Lake Telephone Cooperative and other local providers have built fiber in parts of the western county; legacy DSL remains in pockets. This patchwork drives higher reliance on mobile data and hotspotting than in Idaho’s metro counties.

How Jefferson County differs from Idaho statewide

• Higher family-plan density and average lines per household, linked to larger household sizes and a bigger share of minors.
• Greater reliance on wireless-only telephony and mobile data for home connectivity in rural tracts, due to gaps in cable/fiber. This raises per‑SIM data consumption and hotspot use compared with state averages.
• More pronounced urban–rural performance gap: Town centers enjoy mid‑band 5G and good throughput, while agricultural zones still encounter LTE-only or weak indoor coverage more often than in Idaho’s overall profile.
• Slightly higher prepaid/MVNO penetration than Boise/Treasure Valley and the statewide mix, reflecting budget sensitivity and seasonal/temporary workers.
• Time-and-location congestion is more corridor-driven: US‑20 and I‑15 segments see predictable peaks tied to commuting and seasonal tourism, producing sharper local slowdowns than the statewide pattern.

Implications

• Network priorities: Additional mid‑band 5G sectors and small cells along US‑20, plus targeted rural infill (especially western tracts and near the Menan Buttes), will yield outsized benefits relative to population.
• Product mix: Family bundles, bilingual support, international calling add‑ons, and competitively priced prepaid/MVNO offerings will over-index in the county.
• Digital inclusion: Senior-friendly smartphone programs and subsidized fixed wireless can close the remaining adoption and performance gaps outside town centers.

Notes on method

• Figures are 2024 county-level estimates synthesized from recent Census population totals and age structure, federal broadband/coverage disclosures, and national/rural mobile adoption benchmarks. They are expressed as point estimates or narrow ranges appropriate for planning; local carrier engineering data will show finer-grained coverage and capacity by sector.

Social media usage in Jefferson County, Idaho — snapshot and insights

Overall usage

• Adult penetration: Approximately 70–75% of adults in Jefferson County use at least one social media platform, in line with U.S. rural benchmarks (Pew Research Center).
• Teen penetration: Roughly 90%+ of teens (13–17) use at least one platform; YouTube and TikTok dominate (Pew).
• Internet access context: Household broadband subscription rates in rural Idaho are typically in the low–mid 80% range (U.S. Census ACS), which supports broad platform access.

Most-used platforms (share of adults using the platform; modeled from Pew adoption rates applied to county demographics)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 65–70%
• Instagram: 35–40%
• TikTok: 30–35% (higher among under-35s)
• Pinterest: 28–32% overall; notably higher among women
• Snapchat: 25–30% (concentrated under age 30)
• X (Twitter): ~20–22%
• LinkedIn: ~20–25%

Age-group patterns

• Teens (13–17): YouTube ~95%+, TikTok ~70%, Snapchat ~60–65%, Instagram ~60%+, Facebook much lower.
• Ages 18–29: Very high YouTube (90–95%); Instagram (65–70%), Snapchat (60–65%), TikTok (55–60%); Facebook still widely used (~65–70%).
• Ages 30–49: Facebook (75%+) and YouTube (90%) lead; Instagram (45–50%); TikTok (30–35%); Pinterest (~30–35%).
• Ages 50–64: Facebook (70%+), YouTube (80%+); Instagram and TikTok lower (20–25% and ~15–20% respectively); Pinterest (25–30%).
• 65+: Facebook (50%); YouTube (50%); other platforms much lower.

Gender breakdown (share using each platform; patterns mirror U.S. rural norms)

• Overall social media use: Women slightly higher than men by ~3–5 percentage points.
• Facebook and Instagram: Skew female (Facebook women ~5–10 pts higher than men; Instagram women ~5–10 pts higher).
• Pinterest: Strongly female (women roughly 2–3x men).
• TikTok: Slight female tilt among adults.
• Snapchat: Near parity; slightly higher among young women.
• X (Twitter) and Reddit: Skew male.
• YouTube: Broadly even by gender.

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural Idaho counties and applicable to Jefferson County

• Facebook is the community hub: High engagement with local government, emergency services, schools, youth sports, churches/organizations, and event pages; Facebook Groups and Marketplace see heavy daily use for buy/sell/trade, vehicles, tools, farm and ranch equipment.
• Video-first growth: Short-form video (Reels/TikTok) is the fastest-rising format for local businesses, events, and creators; YouTube remains the go-to for how‑to, repair, hunting/fishing, DIY, and equipment maintenance content.
• Messaging as a service channel: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat are common for quick, direct communication with small businesses; WhatsApp usage is concentrated within Hispanic/Latino and international communities.
• Timing and cadence: Engagement typically peaks evenings (roughly 6–10 p.m.) and weekends; weather, school calendars, and seasonal outdoor activities drive predictable spikes.
• Local commerce: Strong preference for local deals and pickup via Marketplace/Groups; promotions that feature price, availability, and clear local pickup outperform brand-heavy creative.
• Trust signals matter: Authentic, community‑tied content (staff faces, customer testimonials, sponsorships of local teams/events) outperforms generic stock media; comments and recommendations in Groups significantly influence purchase decisions.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are derived from Pew Research Center’s U.S. social media adoption rates (2021–2023) and U.S. Census Bureau (ACS) broadband and demographic benchmarks, scaled to Jefferson County’s rural context. In the absence of verified platform-reported county microdata, values are presented as best-available, policy-relevant estimates.