Lewis County

Lewis County, Idaho — key demographics

Population

• 2023 population estimate: ~4,100 (up from 3,838 in the 2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~48.5 years
• Under 18: ~22%
• 65 and over: ~25%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition

• White (non-Hispanic): ~89%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~7%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Asian/Black/Other: ~1% combined
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~4%

Households

• Households: ~1,650
• Average household size: ~2.4
• Family households: ~67% of all households
• Married-couple households: ~53% of all households
• Households with children under 18: ~26%
• Individuals living alone: ~29% (about 13% age 65+ living alone)
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~79%
• Average family size: ~2.9

Insights

• Small, rural county with modest recent growth.
• Older age structure (about one-quarter 65+), indicating aging demographics.
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with a notable American Indian presence (Nez Perce Reservation overlaps the county).
• Household sizes are modest; most households are owner-occupied and family-based.

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

• Scope: Lewis County, Idaho (2020 Census pop. 3,838; land area ~479 sq mi; density ~8 people/sq mi).
• Estimated email users: ~2,790 residents (≈93% of adults; adults ≈2,994).
• Age distribution of email users (est. counts):
  • 18–29: ~456 (≈16%)
  • 30–49: ~903 (≈32%)
  • 50–64: ~583 (≈21%)
  • 65+: ~848 (≈30%)
• Gender split: Near parity. County population is roughly 51% male, 49% female; email users mirror this (~1,420 men, ~1,370 women).
• Digital access trends:
  • Email is effectively universal among working-age adults; continued uptake among 65+ driven by telehealth, banking, and government services.
  • Low settlement density and rugged terrain mean fixed broadband choices thin outside towns; many households use DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite, with growing fiber buildouts via state/federal programs (e.g., Idaho BEAD, USDA ReConnect) through 2024–2028.
  • Mobile connectivity fills gaps; smartphone reliance is higher in remote areas and lower-income households, sustaining email access even where home broadband is absent.
• Local connectivity facts: Portions of the county overlap the Nez Perce Reservation and river canyons, creating last‑mile challenges; service availability and speeds vary sharply between town centers (e.g., Nezperce, Kamiah area) and outlying ranchlands.

Mobile phone usage in Lewis County, Idaho (2024 snapshot)

Baseline

• Population: 3,838 (2020 Census). Rural, low-density county centered on the Camas Prairie (Nezperce, Craigmont, Winchester) with canyon terrain toward the Clearwater River that complicates radio coverage. Age structure skews older than the Idaho average.

User estimates (modeled from 2020 Census population, rural adoption benchmarks, and age-adjusted Pew Research adoption rates)

• Adults (18+): ~3,000
• Residents with a mobile phone (any type): 2,750–2,950
• Smartphone users: 2,350–2,600
• Basic/feature-phone users: 300–450
• 5G-capable devices among smartphone users: 60–70% (Idaho overall: ~75–80%)
• Households relying primarily on cellular service (wireless‑only for voice): 67–72% (Idaho overall: ~76–81%)

Demographic usage patterns (county vs Idaho)

• Seniors (65+): smartphone adoption 60–68% in Lewis County, materially lower than the state’s senior adoption (75–80%); higher persistence of basic phones and landlines; heavier use of Wi‑Fi calling due to spotty outdoor coverage.
• Working-age adults (25–64): smartphone adoption ~90–95% (near statewide levels), but device replacement cycles are longer (3–4 years vs ~2–3 statewide), so a larger share of LTE‑only handsets remains in circulation.
• Teens (13–17): phone possession ~70–80% (slightly below statewide norms), with tighter data budgets and greater reliance on school/home Wi‑Fi.
• Income effects: a higher share of budget plans and MVNO usage than the state average, reflected in lower average monthly data allowances and more conservative on‑device video use.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carrier footprint: Verizon has the broadest, most reliable rural coverage; AT&T is solid on main corridors and in towns; T‑Mobile is competitive in town centers but patchier between them; a regional provider (Inland Cellular/UScellular footprint) supplements coverage in parts of the Camas Prairie and along US‑95. Roaming to stronger networks is common in fringe areas.
• 5G availability: present primarily as low‑band 5G on/near US‑95 and within town limits; mid‑band 5G capacity is limited or absent across much of the county. Residents frequently fall back to LTE outside population centers. This lags the statewide pattern, where mid‑band 5G is more common around metros and regional hubs.
• Dead zones: pronounced along canyon walls, forested draws, and lesser-traveled county roads (e.g., east-west links off US‑95 and routes dropping toward the Clearwater). On-plateau coverage across Nezperce–Craigmont–Winchester is markedly better.
• Backhaul: tower backhaul is a mix of microwave and fiber. Fiber is strongest along US‑95 and into municipal anchors (schools, public safety), with ongoing rural fiber buildouts improving indoor service quality via Wi‑Fi calling.
• Performance: typical download speeds and capacity trail statewide averages because of fewer sites, more LTE reliance, and challenging terrain. Peak-hour congestion is most noticeable in town centers and along commuter segments of US‑95.
• Emergency communications: E911 and Wireless Emergency Alerts function reliably where signal exists; redundancy across at least two carriers is advisable for public safety and health providers, especially in canyon routes.

How Lewis County differs from Idaho overall (key trends)

• Adoption gap among seniors: larger smartphone adoption shortfall vs the state, sustaining a higher share of basic phones and continued landline use.
• Technology mix: greater reliance on LTE and low‑band 5G; slower turnover to 5G‑capable handsets than the state average.
• Usage patterns: lower per‑line mobile data consumption and more conservative streaming behavior; higher reliance on Wi‑Fi calling in homes and businesses.
• Connectivity as a substitute: a higher share of households use cellular hotspots or phone tethering as a primary/backup internet option than the statewide norm, reflecting sparser wired broadband off the main corridors.

Notes on methodology

• Counts and ranges are model-based estimates using the 2020 Census population for Lewis County, rural vs urban adoption differentials, and age-specific smartphone adoption benchmarks from recent national surveys applied to the county’s older-skewing age profile. Figures are intended to quantify local magnitude and state-level differences where direct county statistics are not published.

Social media in Lewis County, Idaho — 2025 snapshot

How these numbers were derived

• County-specific surveys aren’t published for social platforms. The percentages below are modeled local estimates: Pew Research Center’s 2024 platform-by-age adoption rates were applied to Lewis County’s older-leaning age profile (ACS 2018–2022), with adjustments typical for rural/broadband-limited areas of Idaho. Treat figures as approximate (±5–7 percentage points), but directionally reliable for planning.

Overall user stats (adults 18+)

• Adults using at least one social platform monthly: ~76%
• Daily social users: ~62%
• Mobile-first usage: ~90%+ of social sessions occur on phones
• Broadband households (context for usage): roughly three-quarters to four-fifths, consistent with rural Idaho ACS patterns

Most-used platforms (share of adults using monthly)

• YouTube: ~69%
• Facebook: ~66%
• Instagram: ~28%
• Pinterest: ~24%
• TikTok: ~19%
• Snapchat: ~16%
• LinkedIn: ~14%
• X (Twitter): ~12%
• WhatsApp: ~11%
• Reddit: ~8%
• Nextdoor: ~6%

Age-group patterns (share using any social monthly; platform highlights)

• 18–29: ~90%+ use social; top platforms YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok; Facebook used but more for events and groups than posting
• 30–49: ~85–90%; YouTube and Facebook dominate; Instagram moderate; TikTok/Snapchat used by parents of teens
• 50–64: ~70–80%; Facebook and YouTube are primary; Instagram modest; TikTok niche
• 65+: ~50–60%; Facebook for community/announcements; YouTube for how‑tos, church services, local sports streams

Gender breakdown (users and platform skews)

• Overall users are roughly balanced by gender, reflecting the county’s population split
• Skews: Pinterest and Facebook lean female; YouTube, Reddit, and X lean male; Instagram and TikTok are closer to even

Behavioral trends that matter locally

• Facebook as the community hub: Buy/sell/trade groups, school athletics, church and civic updates, county emergency notices, obituaries, and local events drive the highest engagement
• Video first: Short-form (Reels/TikTok) growth among under‑35; long-form YouTube for DIY, ag/ranch, equipment repair, hunting/fishing, and local government recordings
• Messaging reality: Facebook Messenger is the default for local businesses and clubs; SMS still common; WhatsApp remains a niche tool for families with out‑of‑area ties
• Trust and content style: Locally produced, face‑forward videos and photos outperform polished creative; posts featuring recognizable locations, people, and practical tips earn saves/shares
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (7–9 pm) and weekends; midday (12–1 pm) mini‑spike tied to work breaks and school schedules
• Commerce and promotion: Facebook boosted posts and Events deliver the most predictable local reach; Instagram works for visual products and seasonal tourism; TikTok discovery is opportunistic rather than guaranteed
• News consumption: Facebook and YouTube carry local news; X is used for state/national headlines but has a small local network effect
• Nextdoor substitution: Low Nextdoor penetration means Facebook groups effectively serve the neighborhood/forum role

Sources and methodology

• Pew Research Center, “Social Media Use in 2024” (platform adoption by age)
• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022, Lewis County age/sex profile
• Rural Idaho broadband/adoption patterns from ACS computer-and-internet tables and NTIA indicators
• Localization applied by weighting Pew age-specific adoption to the county’s older age mix and typical rural adjustments (lower TikTok/Snapchat, higher Facebook reliance)

Note: Because no official county-level platform survey exists, figures are modeled estimates intended for planning and outreach, with uncertainty higher for smaller platforms.