Effingham County

Effingham County, Illinois — key demographics (latest available)

Population

• Total: ~34.4k (2023 estimate); 34,668 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~40 years
• Under 18: ~23–24%
• 65 and over: ~18–19%

Sex

• Female: ~50–51% (male: ~49–50%)

Race/ethnicity

• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~92–93%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2–3%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: ~0.6–0.8%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.1–0.2%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%

Households

• Number of households: ~13.7k
• Average household size: ~2.5–2.6 persons
• Family households: roughly two-thirds of households; average family size ~3.0

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau — 2023 Population Estimates; 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey (5-year). Figures rounded.

Effingham County, IL (pop. ~35,000) is a rural area with broad email adoption. Estimates based on Census age mix and Pew adoption rates:

• Estimated email users: 24,000–27,000 residents. Among adults, roughly 90–95% use email; seniors lag slightly but are high adopters.
• Age distribution of email users (approx.): 18–29: 15–18%; 30–49: 30–35%; 50–64: 25–30%; 65+: 18–22%. Teens (13–17) add a modest share via school/work accounts.
• Gender split: near parity (about 50/50), reflecting overall population balance; no meaningful gender gap in email use.

Digital access trends:

• Home broadband subscription is around 75–85% of households (ACS-like rural Illinois range), with a notable smartphone-only segment (~12–18%).
• Mix of cable/fiber in and around the City of Effingham and towns; DSL, fixed wireless, and satellite fill rural gaps.
• Mobile connectivity is strong along the I‑57/I‑70 corridor; 4G is widespread with growing 5G pockets.

Local density/connectivity facts:

• Low population density (~70–75 persons/sq. mile) means last‑mile costs remain a challenge, but ongoing fiber/co-op builds and state/federal grants are improving rural coverage and speeds.

Mobile phone usage in Effingham County, Illinois — 2025 snapshot (with differences vs. the state)

User estimates (orders of magnitude; see method notes)

• Population base: roughly 34,000 residents; about 26,000–27,000 adults (18+) and ~2,100 teens (13–17).
• Mobile phone users (any cellphone): about 26,000–28,000 people, reflecting near‑universal access among adults and high teen adoption.
• Smartphone users: about 22,000–25,000 people.
  • Adult smartphone adoption estimated at 82–86% in the county (a few points below Illinois overall).
  • Teen smartphone adoption 90–95%.
• Households primarily relying on mobile data for home internet: modestly higher than Illinois overall (county likely in the mid‑ to high‑teens percent; Illinois typically low‑ to mid‑teens), driven by more limited wired options outside town centers.
• 5G device penetration: below Illinois average. Expect roughly half of smartphone users carrying 5G‑capable handsets in the county vs. a higher share statewide, with more LTE‑only devices persisting among older and cost‑sensitive users.

Demographic patterns shaping usage (how Effingham differs from Illinois)

• Age structure: slightly older than the state, which:
  • Lowers smartphone and 5G device uptake among 65+.
  • Increases persistence of basic/LTE‑only phones and voice/text‑centric use.
• Income and plan mix: median household income is lower than Illinois overall, which:
  • Raises price sensitivity; prepaid and MVNO plans are more common than in metro Illinois.
  • Slows device upgrade cycles, dampening 5G migration.
• Race/ethnicity and language: the county is predominantly non‑Hispanic White with relatively small immigrant communities, so there is less multilingual marketing/support than in Chicago‑area markets and fewer family‑plan structures geared to multigenerational/immigrant households.
• Work profile: larger shares in agriculture, logistics, and light manufacturing relative to the state, which:
  • Increases employer‑issued lines (especially for fleets and field staff) and hotspot use on the road.
  • Favors carriers with stronger highway/rural coverage and public‑safety integrations.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (local points that differ from state patterns)

• Macro coverage
  • Carriers: AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile all serve the county; regional users may also encounter UScellular roaming. Coverage is strongest along I‑57 and I‑70 and in Effingham, Altamont, and Teutopolis; fringe rural sections have sparser capacity and more LTE fallback than urban Illinois.
  • 5G: Low‑band 5G covers main corridors and towns; mid‑band 5G is concentrated in/near Effingham and along interstates. mmWave/small‑cell density is minimal compared with Illinois’ big metros.
• Capacity and reliability
  • Through‑traffic on I‑57/I‑70, trucking/logistics yards, and seasonal events (e.g., fairgrounds in Altamont) create predictable capacity spikes; carriers tend to optimize highway sectors over deep rural parcels—unlike in metro counties where neighborhood small cells absorb demand.
  • Fewer redundant backhaul paths than in Chicago/surrounding counties; weather and construction can have outsized effects in rural segments.
• Fixed broadband interplay
  • Cable/fiber in town cores (e.g., Mediacom/cable, telco fiber/DSL in select areas); WISPs and fixed wireless 4G/5G further out. Rural gaps make mobile hotspots more common than statewide.
  • State programs (e.g., Connect Illinois) are expanding rural fiber, but build‑outs are staggered; until completed, mobile data serves as a primary or backup connection for more households than the Illinois average.
• Public safety and enterprise
  • FirstNet/priority services are used by county agencies; coverage decisions and device choices often mirror AT&T/Verizon rural performance rather than the dense multi‑carrier footprints seen in metro Illinois.
  • Industrial/ag sites and grain elevators often host antennas, providing good line‑of‑sight sectors across flat terrain; tree lines and distance, not terrain, are the main impediments.

Key trends vs. Illinois overall

• Slightly lower smartphone and 5G handset penetration; longer device replacement cycles.
• Higher reliance on mobile data as a primary home connection in rural areas.
• Greater share of prepaid/MVNO and single‑line plans; lower share of premium unlimited family plans.
• Network experience is more corridor‑centric (interstates, towns) with patchier mid‑band 5G off‑corridor, unlike the dense urban small‑cell grids in Chicago and its suburbs.
• Usage skew: more voice/SMS and hotspot use for work/education; slightly lower penetration of data‑heavy urban app behaviors tied to ubiquitous high‑capacity 5G.

Method and assumptions (to interpret the estimates)

• Population from recent ACS/Census signals (~34k). Adult share assumed ~77–79%; teens 13–17 ~6–7%.
• Ownership/adoption anchored to Pew Research’s national/rural splits and industry reports: near‑universal cellphone access, adult smartphone adoption in rural areas a few points below urban/suburban; teen adoption very high.
• 5G device share inferred lower than state average due to age/income mix and rural network build priorities.
• Mobile‑only internet reliance judged higher than Illinois average based on rural broadband availability patterns and state grant deployment timelines.
• For planning or investment, validate with current FCC Broadband Maps, carrier coverage tools, Illinois Connect grant disclosures, local providers, and school/library reports.

Below is a concise, locality-optimized snapshot. Figures are modeled estimates using U.S. Census (county population/age mix) and Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. social media adoption rates, adjusted slightly for a rural/suburban market. Treat as directional, not audited counts.

Population and user base

• Population: ~34,500
• Adults (18+): ~26,000
• Estimated social media users
  • Adults (18+): ~20,000–21,000 (≈75–82% of adults)
  • Ages 13+ overall: ~24,000–26,000 users

Most-used platforms among adults (18+) in Effingham County (modeled share of adults; approx. users in parentheses)

• YouTube: 75–80% (≈19.5k–21k)
• Facebook: 60–68% (≈15.5k–17.5k)
• Instagram: 35–40% (≈9k–10.5k)
• Pinterest: 30–35% (≈7.8k–9k)
• TikTok: 25–33% (≈6.5k–8.5k)
• Snapchat: 20–27% (≈5.2k–7k) Secondary but present: LinkedIn and X (Twitter) each ~15–20% of adults; Reddit ~12–17%.

Age-group patterns (who uses what most)

• Teens (13–17): Very high on YouTube; TikTok and Snapchat lead daily social use; Instagram strong; limited Facebook except for teams/groups.
• 18–29: Multi-platform heavy. Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat are daily; YouTube near-universal; Facebook used for family, events, Marketplace.
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube are daily staples; Instagram moderate; TikTok rising for short-form video; Pinterest common for DIY/home, recipes.
• 50–64: Facebook (groups/Marketplace) and YouTube (how‑to, news) dominate; Instagram light; TikTok limited but growing.
• 65+: Facebook is primary social app; YouTube second; Messenger central for communication.

Gender tendencies

• Women: Over-index on Facebook (groups, community), Instagram, Pinterest; strong Marketplace use; active in local events and school/church networks.
• Men: Over-index on YouTube; relatively higher shares on X and Reddit; strong interest in sports, automotive, outdoor/farm content; later-evening viewing.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first behavior: Local news, school sports, church and fair/community events drive outsized engagement in Facebook Groups and on local Pages.
• Marketplace matters: Facebook buy/sell groups and Marketplace are high-traffic channels for local commerce and promotion.
• Short-form video growth: Facebook Reels/Instagram Reels and TikTok consumption rising across under-40s; cross-posting performs well.
• Messaging hubs: Facebook Messenger ubiquitous across 30+; Snapchat DM central for teens/20s.
• Video search as utility: YouTube widely used for how‑to, product research, and local service discovery.
• Timing: Engagement peaks early morning (6–8 a.m.), lunch (11:30 a.m.–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–9 p.m.); Sunday evenings and bad-weather days see spikes.
• Trust/word-of-mouth: Local recommendations (friends, groups) strongly influence purchasing; reviews on Facebook/Google shape service selection.

Notes on methodology

• Counts and percentages are modeled by applying national platform adoption rates by age to Effingham County’s age structure, with modest rural weighting. For precise campaign planning, validate with platform ad planners (Facebook/Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok) using a county geo-filter.