Kootenai County

Kootenai County, Idaho — key demographics

Population size

• 2023 population estimate: 183,600 (U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program)
• 2020 Census: 171,362; 2010 Census: 138,494
• Growth: +32% since 2010; +7% since 2020

Age

• Median age: ~39.7 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~23%
• 18 to 64: ~58%
• 65 and over: ~19%

Gender

• Female: ~50.2%
• Male: ~49.8%

Racial/ethnic composition (mutually exclusive; ACS 2018–2022)

• Non-Hispanic White: ~87%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~7%
• Two or more races (Non-Hispanic): ~3–4%
• American Indian/Alaska Native (Non-Hispanic): ~1–2%
• Asian (Non-Hispanic): ~1%
• Black or African American (Non-Hispanic): ~0.5%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (Non-Hispanic): ~0.2%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~71,000
• Average household size: ~2.6 persons
• Family households: ~66% of households
• Married-couple households: ~49% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~30%
• Nonfamily households: ~34%
• Living alone: ~25% of households; ~10% are 65+ living alone
• Homeownership rate: ~73%

Insights

• One of Idaho’s faster-growing counties with sustained post-2020 growth
• Age profile slightly older than the state overall
• Population remains predominantly non-Hispanic White, with a growing Hispanic/Latino share
• Household structure is family-oriented with high homeownership and moderate household size

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (Population Estimates Program, 2023; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year, tables including B01001, B01002, B03002, DP02, DP04). Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Kootenai County, ID email usage (2025 estimate)

• Estimated email users: ≈140,000 residents. Method: applied U.S. email adoption rates by age to Kootenai’s population.
• Age distribution of email users: 13–17: 6%; 18–34: 25%; 35–54: 33%; 55–74: 29%; 75+: 7%.
• Gender split among users: ~50% female, ~50% male (email adoption is effectively parity by gender).

Digital access and trends

• Household access: ~93% of households have a computer and ~89% have a broadband subscription; about 13% are smartphone‑only for home internet.
• Connectivity: Dense multi‑provider coverage (Spectrum cable, Ziply/TDS fiber builds, plus 5G from major carriers) along the I‑90 corridor spanning Coeur d’Alene–Post Falls–Rathdrum; rural lakeshore/forested areas rely more on DSL, fixed wireless, and satellite.
• Speeds: Urban/suburban fixed broadband commonly delivers 100–1000 Mbps; performance drops in outlying areas.
• Usage trend: Continued migration to fiber and higher‑tier cable plans is raising effective email reliability and mobility via smartphone access.

Local density/connectivity facts

• Population density ≈145 people per square mile, well above Idaho’s statewide average, concentrating infrastructure and yielding higher broadband adoption and more consistent email access in the urban corridor.

Mobile phone usage in Kootenai County, Idaho — summary and key differences from Idaho overall

Scope and sources

• Timeframe: most recent publicly available data through 2023–2024.
• Sources: U.S. Census Bureau/ACS device and internet indicators (S2801), FCC National Broadband Map and Mobile Coverage datasets, Pew Research smartphone adoption trends, CDC/NCHS wireless-only household estimates. Where county-specific counts are not directly published, figures are estimated from those datasets and local demographics.

User estimates

• Population base: ~180,000–185,000 residents; ~70,000–75,000 households.
• Smartphone users: approximately 140,000–150,000 people use a smartphone in Kootenai County. This equates to roughly 93–95% of adults and ~95% of teens having a smartphone, slightly above Idaho’s statewide adult rate (about 90–92%).
• Wireless-only households (no landline voice): about 70–75% of households, a touch higher than Idaho’s statewide share (upper 60s to low 70s) and aligned with fast-growing suburban counties in the Mountain West.
• Households with a cellular data plan (any device): roughly 80–85% of households, above the statewide average by 2–4 percentage points, reflecting stronger 5G availability in the Coeur d’Alene–Post Falls corridor and proximity to Spokane’s networks.

Demographic breakdown (share with smartphones; directional differences vs Idaho)

• Ages 18–34: near-universal adoption (~98–99%); slightly higher than Idaho overall due to a larger share of service, retail, and healthcare workers in/around Coeur d’Alene and commuting ties to Spokane.
• Ages 35–54: very high adoption (~95–97%); above statewide averages by 1–2 points, consistent with higher dual-income and family smartphone penetration.
• Ages 55–64: high adoption (~88–92%); modestly above Idaho average, aided by better mid-band 5G coverage and device financing through national carriers.
• Ages 65+: solid majority (~80–85%); notably higher than Idaho’s 65+ average (mid-to-upper 70s), supported by strong healthcare portal usage and fixed wireless home internet in suburban areas.
• Income: adoption approaches saturation in middle and upper income bands; low-income households show higher dependence on smartphones as primary internet access than the state average, reflecting housing growth on the urban fringe where fixed wired options can be limited.
• Urban/suburban vs rural: in the Coeur d’Alene–Post Falls–Hayden axis, adoption and data use are at or above statewide urban levels; rural northern and eastern tracts trail but still exceed many rural Idaho counties due to spillover coverage from Spokane and I‑90/US‑95 corridors.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• 5G population coverage: >95% of residents have outdoor 5G signal from at least one national carrier, materially higher than coverage typical of Idaho’s rural counties. Mid-band 5G (T‑Mobile and Verizon C‑band) is established across Coeur d’Alene, Post Falls, and Hayden; AT&T coverage is present with growing mid-band capacity.
• 4G LTE: countywide baseline coverage with persistent weak spots in mountainous/forested areas north and east of Hayden and around lake-influenced terrain.
• Capacity corridors: strongest capacity and speeds along I‑90 (Post Falls ↔ Coeur d’Alene) and US‑95 (south–north through Hayden and Athol).
• Fixed wireless home internet (FWA): T‑Mobile and Verizon 5G Home are available to an estimated majority of rooftops (roughly 70–80%), a higher share than Idaho overall. Uptake is notably strong in new subdivisions and on the suburban fringe where fiber is still rolling out.
• Roaming and cross-market effects: proximity to Spokane Valley bolsters signal redundancy and backhaul; residents often see metro‑grade 5G performance and cross‑market carrier promotions uncommon in other Idaho counties.
• Public safety and coverage resiliency: tower siting clusters near transportation and healthcare hubs; lakefront and hillside terrain introduce localized dead zones, but overall resiliency and overlapping carrier footprints are stronger than typical rural Idaho patterns.

How Kootenai County differs from Idaho overall

• Higher smartphone penetration: 1–3 percentage points above the state average across most age bands; the gap widens to 4–7 points among seniors.
• More wireless-only households: several points higher than statewide, reflecting strong mobile networks and declining landline relevance.
• Greater reliance on mobile data for home internet: FWA availability is broader and adoption is higher than the Idaho average, narrowing the digital divide in fast-growing suburbs.
• Better 5G depth and capacity: mid-band 5G is more continuous across populated areas than in many Idaho counties, translating to higher median speeds and more consistent indoor coverage in modern construction.
• Less geographic disparity: rural parts of the county still lag urban cores, but the urban–rural gap in mobile experience is smaller than Idaho’s typical pattern due to cross-border network effects and corridor-focused investment.
• Faster growth in connected households: rapid population and housing growth since 2020 has coincided with swift carrier upgrades, pushing device and plan uptake faster than the statewide pace.

Practical implications

• Marketing and service planning: premium/postpaid and multi-line family plans over-index vs state average; device financing and trade‑in programs perform well.
• Digital equity: smartphone-centric access programs and FWA subsidies are effective for low- to moderate-income households, particularly in new subdivisions lacking fiber.
• Network planning: continued small-cell and mid-band densification along I‑90/US‑95 and lake-adjacent neighborhoods yields outsized improvements; targeted fill‑ins are still needed in wooded terrain north/east of Hayden and near elevation changes.

Notes

• Figures are derived from the latest county-level ACS indicators mapped to mobile usage, combined with FCC coverage and carrier deployment patterns current through 2024. Exact carrier market shares and precise tower counts are not publicly consolidated at the county level; user and household figures above are best-available estimates grounded in those official datasets.

Kootenai County, ID — social media usage snapshot (modeled from the most recent U.S. adult benchmarks, applied to the county’s adult population; sources: Pew Research Center 2023–2024, U.S. Census Bureau 2023 estimates)

Population context

• Total population: ~180,000
• Adults (18+): ~140,000
• Gender split: roughly 50/50

Most-used platforms (share of adults who use each; applying these to ~140,000 adults gives the rough user counts in Kootenai County)

• YouTube: 83% (~116,000)
• Facebook: 68% (~95,000)
• Instagram: 47% (~66,000)
• Pinterest: 35% (~49,000)
• LinkedIn: 30% (~42,000)
• TikTok: 33% (~46,000)
• Snapchat: 27% (~38,000)
• X (Twitter): 22% (~31,000)
• Reddit: 22% (~31,000)
• WhatsApp: 21% (~29,000)
• Nextdoor: 19% (~27,000)

Age-group usage patterns (share of adults in each age band using each platform; U.S. benchmarks closely fit counties like Kootenai)

• Ages 18–29: YouTube ~95%, Instagram ~78%, Snapchat ~65%, TikTok ~62%, Facebook ~67%
• Ages 30–49: YouTube ~92%, Facebook ~73%, Instagram ~49%, TikTok ~39%, Snapchat ~40%, LinkedIn ~37%
• Ages 50–64: Facebook ~69%, YouTube ~83%, Instagram ~29%, TikTok ~19%, Pinterest ~36%, Nextdoor ~25%
• Ages 65+: Facebook ~58%, YouTube ~49%, Nextdoor ~28%, Instagram ~13%, TikTok ~7%

Gender breakdown by platform (share of men vs. women who use; directional differences matter for targeting)

• Higher among women: Facebook (75% women vs ~61% men), Instagram (52% vs 42%), Pinterest (50% vs 18%), Snapchat (32% vs 22%), TikTok (40% vs 25%), Nextdoor (23% vs ~15%)
• Higher among men: YouTube (86% men vs ~81% women), Reddit (29% vs 15%), X/Twitter (27% vs ~18%)
• Minimal gender gap: LinkedIn (~31% men vs ~28% women), WhatsApp low-to-mid 20s for both

Behavioral trends in Kootenai County (consistent with suburban–rural Idaho counties)

• Facebook is the community hub: strong reliance on Groups and Marketplace for local news, events, jobs, vehicles, and outdoor gear; local media and agencies drive engagement during weather, wildfire, road, and school-closure updates
• Instagram is the small-business showroom: real estate, restaurants, outdoor/boat rentals, fitness, and tourism lean on Reels; visual content highlighting Lake Coeur d’Alene and outdoor lifestyle over-indexes
• TikTok growth is under-35 led: short DIY, home improvement, family, boating, hiking, hunting/fishing clips; frequent cross-posting to Instagram Reels
• YouTube is the “how-to” backbone: home repair, construction trades, boating maintenance, outdoor skills, and long-form local news commentary; weekend viewing spikes
• Nextdoor is neighborhood utility: safety alerts, HOA updates, lost & found, municipal notices—strongest in Coeur d’Alene, Post Falls, Hayden suburbs
• Seasonal cadence: May–Sept tourism/boating content peaks; winter emphasizes snow/road conditions; late summer emphasizes wildfire updates; civic content spikes around school board and county elections

Notes on method

• Percentages are the latest available U.S. adult adoption rates by platform, age, and gender (Pew Research Center 2023–2024). Kootenai County’s demographics align closely with these benchmarks; multiplying by the county’s ~140k adults provides the local user estimates shown above.