Hamilton County

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census and American Community Survey 5‑Year estimates). Figures rounded; year of reference noted where applicable.

Population

• Total (2020 Census): 7,993.

Age

• Median age (ACS 5‑yr): ~45 years.
• Age distribution (ACS 5‑yr): under 18 ≈ 21%; 18–64 ≈ 57%; 65+ ≈ 22%.

Gender (ACS 5‑yr)

• Male ≈ 49%; Female ≈ 51%.

Racial / ethnic composition (ACS 5‑yr)

• White alone, non‑Hispanic ≈ 97%.
• Black or African American alone ≈ 0.3%.
• American Indian & Alaska Native alone ≈ 0.2%.
• Asian alone ≈ 0.3%.
• Two or more races ≈ 1.5–2.0%.
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race) ≈ 1–2%.

Household data (ACS 5‑yr)

• Total households ≈ 3,400.
• Average household size ≈ 2.3 persons.
• Family households ≈ 2,300 (≈ 67–69% of households).
• Owner‑occupied housing rate ≈ 78–82%.
• Median household income (ACS 5‑yr) ≈ $45,000–$50,000.
• Poverty rate (ACS 5‑yr) ≈ 14–17%.

Key insights

• Hamilton County is a small, predominantly non‑Hispanic White, rural county with an older median age and a substantial share (about one‑fifth) aged 65 or older.
• Household composition is dominated by family and owner‑occupied housing; median incomes are below national averages and poverty rates are modestly elevated, reflecting rural economic patterns.

Hamilton County, IL (2020 pop. ~7,993) — estimated 5,800 regular email users (≈73% of residents; ≈86% of adults). Age distribution of those users: 16–34: 22% (≈1,276); 35–54: 30% (≈1,740); 55–74: 34% (≈1,972); 75+: 14% (≈812). Gender split among email users: 51% female (≈2,958), 49% male (≈2,842).

Digital access trends: smartphone ownership among adults ≈78% (4,680 people), home broadband subscription ≈68% of households (2,312 of ~3,400 households), and year‑over‑year broadband takeup rising ~3% annually. Approximately 88% of county addresses have access to fixed broadband service; fiber-to-the-premises remains limited (<10% coverage), increasing slowly through targeted grants and cooperative deployments. Local density/connectivity: county area ≈436 sq mi, population density ≈18 people/sq mi, reinforcing rural last‑mile challenges and greater reliance on mobile and public Wi‑Fi (libraries, community centers) for email access and online services.

Summary — Mobile phone usage in Hamilton County, IL

Quick snapshot (estimates)

• County population: roughly 8,000 residents (rounded estimate based on recent census-era counts).
• Total mobile phone users: roughly 6,400–6,800 residents (80–85% of the population).
• Smartphone owners: an estimated 6,000–6,400 residents (75–80% penetration).
• Mobile-only internet households (households that rely on a smartphone as their primary or sole means of internet access): roughly 20–28% of households, notably above the statewide average.

User estimates and behavior

• Smartphone penetration: About 75–80% overall. Younger adults (18–34) approach near-universal ownership (~95%), middle-aged adults (35–54) are about 85–90% smartphone owners, adults 55–64 around 70–80%, and 65+ roughly 50–60%.
• Mobile data subscriptions and lines: Many adults have at least one mobile line; smartphone data plans are common but multi-line, high-data plans are less common than in urban counties. Per-capita mobile data usage is lower than urban Illinois counties but rising year-over-year.
• Mobile-only internet dependence: A larger share of households depend on smartphones for internet access compared with Illinois as a whole; estimates place Hamilton County’s mobile-only households in the low-to-mid 20% range versus mid-teens statewide. This drives higher reliance on cellular data for email, social media, telemedicine access, and schoolwork for families without reliable fixed broadband.

Demographic breakdown and how it shapes mobile use

• Age: Younger residents are effectively all smartphone users and use mobile for streaming, social media, navigation, and apps. Older residents (65+) have substantially lower smartphone ownership and are more likely to have basic phones or limited-data plans; this cohort accounts for most of the gap versus state-level smartphone penetration.
• Income and education: Hamilton County’s median household income and educational attainment are lower than Illinois averages. Households earning under $35,000/year show smartphone ownership around 65–75% and are more likely to be mobile-dependent for internet. Higher-income and college-educated residents in the county mirror statewide adoption and use patterns.
• Employment and occupation: A higher share of residents work in agriculture, trades, and service sectors; these jobs favor mobile voice and messaging over fixed-location high-bandwidth applications. Mobile adoption for work-related uses (mobile email, messaging, simple apps) is moderate but enterprise-mobile adoption (company-provided devices, mobile-first business apps) is lower than state metro averages.
• Race and language: Patterns broadly follow national/state trends where non-white and non-English-dominant households can be either highly mobile-reliant or highly mobile-savvy; in Hamilton County the small minority populations do not materially change aggregate county rates but do show pockets of both high and low mobile adoption depending on income and household composition.

Digital infrastructure points

• Cellular coverage: Primary carriers provide 4G/LTE coverage across population centers and major roads; however, significant coverage gaps persist in many rural parts of the county. 5G availability is limited, largely to McLeansboro and immediate surroundings, with little to no countywide 5G footprint.
• Fixed broadband availability and speeds: Availability of cable/fiber broadband is limited outside town centers. Many rural households rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite for home service. The share of households with access to true broadband speeds (defined by common policy thresholds such as 25/3 Mbps or higher) is lower than the Illinois average; median observed download speeds across the county are materially below urban/suburban counties.
• Mobile network quality: Where LTE is available, performance is sufficient for standard browsing, social apps, and video calls at modest quality. In coverage-gap areas, residents report low signal strength and higher latency, making video-heavy applications and remote-work scenarios unreliable.
• Public access points: Public Wi-Fi options are limited largely to libraries, municipal buildings, and a few businesses. Schools provide hotspot loan programs or mobile hotspots for students at times, but persistent, universally available public Wi‑Fi is not present.
• Infrastructure investment and trends: State and federal broadband expansion funds and carrier network upgrades have been directed to the region, but rollout timelines mean incremental improvements rather than rapid countywide transformation. Fixed wireless providers are expanding in some townships, improving speeds for certain clusters of households.

Trends and differences from Illinois statewide patterns

• Lower overall smartphone penetration: Hamilton County’s smartphone ownership (75–80%) trails Illinois statewide averages (mid- to high-80s), with the gap concentrated in the 55+ population and lower-income households.
• Higher mobile-only internet reliance: A larger share of Hamilton County households rely primarily or solely on mobile data for home internet compared with statewide figures (low-to-mid 20% vs. mid-teens statewide). This makes cellular network quality disproportionately important for residents’ internet access.
• More pronounced coverage quality gaps: Whereas Illinois’ metro/suburban counties show widespread LTE and growing 5G, Hamilton County still faces geographic coverage and speed gaps; 5G deployment is spotty and largely absent outside the county seat.
• Lower fixed broadband availability and adoption: The county lags the state in wired broadband availability and subscription rates; substitution toward satellite and fixed wireless is more common here than in more densely populated Illinois counties.
• Slower uptake of high-data mobile services: Adoption of bandwidth-intensive mobile behaviors (4K streaming, large-cloud backups, multiple concurrent video calls at home) is lower than state averages, constrained by plan costs, coverage and household device mixes.

Actionable implications and insights

• Mobile networks are essential: Given the higher mobile-only household share, improving cellular coverage and affordable mobile data plans would immediately improve residents’ connectivity for education, healthcare, and commerce.
• Targeted 5G/fixed wireless expansion matters most around towns and population clusters: Investments delivering reliable mid/high-bandwidth service to small population centers will have high impact.
• Senior-targeted digital literacy and low-cost device/plan programs will close a large portion of the smartphone-ownership gap.
• Schools, healthcare providers, and county services should continue to plan for mobile-first or mobile-friendly access (lightweight web experiences, SMS and low-bandwidth telehealth options), given the county’s above-average mobile dependence.

Overall, Hamilton County shows typical rural Midwestern mobile patterns: solid adoption among younger adults, meaningful mobile dependence for lower-income households, and infrastructure constraints (coverage gaps, limited 5G, and lower fixed broadband availability) that produce mobile-usage behaviors and needs materially different from Illinois urban and suburban counties.

Summary — Hamilton County, IL (short, evidence‑based estimates)

Context and data approach

• Hamilton County population: ≈8,000 (2020 U.S. Census). Precise, county‑level platform market‑share data are not published; the figures below are best‑available, evidence‑based estimates derived from Hamilton County demographics and statewide/national social media adoption patterns (Pew Research Center, U.S. Census/American Community Survey, industry reports). Numbers shown are rounded and given as ranges where local variation is likely.

User totals and basic penetration

• Adults (18+): ~6,000–6,500 residents.
• Estimated share of adults who use at least one social network: about 60–70% → roughly 3,600–4,500 social media users countywide (central estimate ≈4,100).

Age-group composition of social users (estimated share of the county’s social user base)

• 18–29: 10–15% of social users (high individual adoption rate but small local cohort).
• 30–49: 25–30% of social users.
• 50–64: 30–35% of social users.
• 65+: 20–30% of social users (lower adoption per capita but represents a substantial portion of county population).
  Behavioral implication: the county skews older than urban areas, so a larger share of social engagement comes from 35+ adults compared with national averages.

Gender breakdown (overall social users)

• Female: ~52–55% of social users.
• Male: ~45–48% of social users.
  Platform gender skews follow national patterns: Facebook and Pinterest skew female; Reddit and some niche forums skew male; LinkedIn is near even or slightly male‑leaning.

Most‑used platforms (reach among county social users; estimated percentages)

• Facebook & Facebook Groups/Marketplace: 75–85% of social users (≈2,800–3,500 people). Primary platform for local news, community groups, classifieds and event coordination.
• YouTube (video consumption, includes non‑social use): 65–80% of adults consume content on YouTube periodically (~2,500–3,300 people).
• Instagram: 25–35% of social users (stronger among under‑50s).
• TikTok: 10–25% of social users (concentrated among the younger cohort, growing but lower penetration than in urban settings).
• Facebook Messenger / text apps: 60–70% use for direct communication.
• Nextdoor / neighborhood apps and local community pages: 10–20% (important for hyper‑local alerts and civic info).
• LinkedIn: ~10–15% (job and business networking; lower in a largely rural workforce).
• Snapchat and other ephemeral platforms: 10–15% (mainly younger residents).

Key behavioral trends and local insights

• Facebook is dominant for community life: local government notices, school updates, church groups, classifieds and farm/yard‑sale activity concentrate on Facebook Groups and Marketplace.
• Passive consumption > active creation: a majority browse and share links/posts rather than producing frequent original video content. Short videos and photo posts do get higher engagement when tied to local events or people.
• Local news and practical utility drive engagement: road/utility updates, school/athletic results, lost & found, and buying/selling items get the most consistent interactions.
• Younger residents are heavily mobile and favor Instagram/TikTok for entertainment; retention of younger adults on county platforms is low compared with older adults.
• Trust and tone: posts from known local institutions (schools, churches, emergency services, long‑standing businesses) get higher trust and interaction than posts from unfamiliar pages or broad commercial ads.
• E‑commerce and discovery: Facebook Marketplace is the primary social commerce channel; paid social ads can work but require strong local targeting and credibility.
• Access constraints: broadband and mobile signal variability in rural areas limit heavy video streaming for some households; text/image posts and lightweight video perform better than long, high‑bitrate livestreams for broad reach.

Practical implications (for outreach, advertising or community engagement)

• Prioritize Facebook (page + groups + Marketplace) and optimize for mobile viewing.
• Use short video (YouTube/Facebook), simple images and clear local calls to action.
• Time posts for mornings and early evenings; pin important notices to groups/pages.
• Combine social with traditional channels (flyers, local radio/newspaper) to reach the oldest non‑users.
• For youth targeting, concentrate on Instagram Reels and TikTok content, but expect smaller absolute numbers than Facebook reach.

Sources and reliability note

• Estimates are derived from Hamilton County demographic profiles (census) combined with statewide/national social media adoption patterns (Pew Research Center, digital industry usage surveys). Exact, platform‑level market shares at the county level are not routinely published, so figures above are modeled ranges intended to reflect realistic local behavior rather than precise counts.