Cass County Local Demographic Profile

Key demographics — Cass County, Indiana (latest U.S. Census Bureau data)

  • Population: ~37,800 (2023 estimate)
  • Age
    • Median age: ~40 years
    • Under 18: ~24%
    • 65 and over: ~18%
  • Gender: ~51% male, ~49% female
  • Race/ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023)
    • White alone: ~86%
    • Black or African American: ~2%
    • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
    • Asian: ~1%
    • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0%
    • Some other race: ~5%
    • Two or more races: ~5%
    • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~20%
    • White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~74%
  • Households (ACS 2019–2023)
    • Number of households: ~14,200
    • Average household size: ~2.6
    • Family households: ~66% of households
    • Married-couple families: ~48% of households
    • Households with children under 18: ~28%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 Population Estimates; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year.

Email Usage in Cass County

Cass County, IN email usage (estimates)

  • Population: ~37–38k residents. Estimated email users: 26–30k (most adults plus many teens).
  • Age distribution among email users:
    • 13–17: 60–75% adoption; about 8–10% of total users.
    • 18–34: 90–95% adoption; about 25–30% of users.
    • 35–64: 90–95% adoption; about 45–50% of users (largest block).
    • 65+: 75–85% adoption; about 15–20% of users.
  • Gender split: Near parity (county population is roughly 49% male, 51% female); email usage differences by gender are minimal.
  • Digital access trends:
    • Home broadband in roughly three‑quarters of households (consistent with rural Indiana ACS patterns in the mid‑to‑high 70% range).
    • Growing smartphone‑only internet use (around 10–15%), especially in lower‑density areas.
    • Public Wi‑Fi (libraries, schools, municipal sites) remains an important access point.
  • Local density/connectivity facts:
    • Population density ~90 people/sq mi; addresses cluster around Logansport, where cable and some fiber are more available.
    • Outer townships rely more on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite; speeds and reliability vary by terrain and distance to towers.
    • Cellular coverage is strongest along US‑24/US‑35 corridors, with weaker pockets in rural low‑lying areas.

Mobile Phone Usage in Cass County

Cass County, IN: mobile usage snapshot (focus on what differs from statewide)

Bottom line

  • Mobile is ubiquitous, but Cass County leans more mobile‑reliant than Indiana overall, driven by a relatively older age structure, lower household incomes, and a larger Hispanic population, alongside patchier wireline broadband in rural townships.

User estimates (orders of magnitude; rounded)

  • Population and base: ~37,000 residents; ~28,000–29,000 adults (18+).
  • Smartphone users: ~24,000–26,000 adults (roughly 85–90% adult adoption; slightly below Indiana’s ~88–92% because Cass is older and lower‑income on average).
  • Mobile‑only home internet users: about 5,000–7,000 residents (roughly 18–22% of households relying primarily on cellular service for home internet, a few points higher than the state’s ~13–18%). This includes smartphone‑only and hotspot users.
  • Prepaid share: modestly higher than the statewide mix, reflecting price sensitivity; expect a noticeable footprint for prepaid brands (e.g., Metro, Cricket, Straight Talk).

Demographic patterning of use

  • Age: Cass skews older than Indiana, which nudges overall smartphone adoption down a bit. Among 65+, smartphone adoption likely ~70–80% (vs ~80%+ statewide in metro areas); many in this group keep voice/text plans or basic smartphones and are less likely to stream over mobile.
  • Income: Median household income trails the state average, which correlates with:
    • Higher smartphone‑only internet access
    • Greater use of prepaid plans and budget Android devices
    • More data‑cap sensitivity and off‑loading to public Wi‑Fi (libraries, schools)
  • Race/ethnicity: A larger Hispanic population (notably in Logansport) compared to the state average contributes to above‑average smartphone dependence for everyday tasks (work shifts, messaging, remittances, language apps) and a higher rate of mobile‑only households.
  • Education: Lower four‑year degree attainment than the state average is associated with slightly lower computer ownership and higher reliance on smartphones as the primary internet device.

Digital infrastructure and performance

  • Coverage and tech mix:
    • All three national carriers operate in the county. Mid‑band 5G is available in/around Logansport from at least one carrier; low‑band 5G and LTE dominate outside town.
    • Rural edges and river‑bottom terrain see more LTE fallback and weaker indoor signal than Indiana’s metro counties.
  • Speeds and consistency:
    • In‑town 5G can deliver strong median speeds; outside town, speeds are more variable and often constrained by band availability and backhaul—yielding a wider urban–rural spread than the state as a whole.
  • Backhaul and fiber:
    • Wireline broadband is comparatively sparse in several townships; as fiber expands via state programs (e.g., Next Level Connections/BEAD projects), carriers typically upgrade backhaul on nearby cell sites, improving 5G consistency. Cass starts from a lower wireline baseline than the state average, so the uplift from new fiber can be proportionally larger.
  • Public and institutional access:
    • Schools, libraries, and municipal sites are important for Wi‑Fi off‑load; utilization of these networks for homework and services is higher than in most Indiana suburban counties.

How Cass County differs most from Indiana overall

  • Higher mobile‑only reliance: A larger share of households depend on smartphones/hotspots as primary home internet, driven by income mix and sparser cable/fiber options.
  • More variability in experience: Bigger gap between in‑town 5G performance and out‑of‑town LTE/low‑band 5G coverage than the statewide average.
  • Demographic drivers: A combination of an older age profile (pulling down overall adoption a bit) and a larger Hispanic population (raising smartphone dependence) creates a bimodal usage pattern not as visible statewide.
  • Plan mix: Slightly higher prepaid penetration and price‑sensitive plan selection than Indiana’s metro/suburban counties.

Notes on method and sources

  • Estimates synthesize: US Census/ACS Computer and Internet Use (county 5‑year tables, e.g., S2801), Pew Research smartphone adoption by age/income, FCC Broadband Data Collection/coverage maps, carrier‑published 5G footprints, and known rural Indiana adoption patterns. Figures are presented as ranges to reflect year‑to‑year ACS variation and carrier rollout timing. For a validation pass, compare to the latest ACS 5‑year S2801 for Cass County and Indiana, plus current FCC/NBTC coverage layers.

Social Media Trends in Cass County

Note: Hyperlocal social-media counts aren’t published at the county level. The figures below are modeled estimates using Cass County’s size and age mix, Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social media use, and rural-Midwest adoption patterns. Treat them as directional, not exact.

Snapshot of the market

  • Population: ≈37,000 residents; ≈28,000 adults (18+).
  • Adults using at least one social platform: ≈23,000–25,000 (≈80–90% of adults).
  • Age mix (approx.): Under 18 ~24%; 18–29 ~13%; 30–49 ~25%; 50–64 ~21%; 65+ ~17%.
  • Notable local factor: A sizable Hispanic/Latino community in/around Logansport drives above-average use of WhatsApp and Spanish-language Facebook groups.

Most-used platforms (adults, estimated share in Cass County)

  • YouTube: ~75–85%
  • Facebook: ~60–70%
  • Instagram: ~35–45%
  • TikTok: ~28–38%
  • Snapchat: ~25–35% (dominant among teens/younger 20s)
  • Pinterest: ~25–35% (heavily female)
  • X/Twitter: ~15–25% (more news/sports/politics followers)
  • Reddit: ~10–18% (male-skewed, younger)
  • LinkedIn: ~10–20% (professionals; smaller base)
  • WhatsApp: ~12–20% overall; among Hispanic adults, ~35–55%
  • Nextdoor: ~5–10% (Facebook groups fill most neighborhood needs in rural areas)

Age-group patterns

  • Teens (13–17): Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube are primary; light Facebook (mainly for school/teams).
  • 18–29: Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube; Facebook mainly for groups/Marketplace.
  • 30–49: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram growing; TikTok for entertainment/DIY; heavy Marketplace use.
  • 50–64: Facebook (community groups, local news), YouTube (how‑to, local sports/clips).
  • 65+: Facebook for family, churches, civic updates; YouTube for tutorials and local events.

Gender tendencies (directional)

  • Female-skewed: Facebook (slight), Instagram (slight), Pinterest (strong), Snapchat (slight), TikTok (slight).
  • Male-skewed: YouTube (slight), Reddit (strong), X/Twitter (moderate), LinkedIn (slight).
  • Overall user base in the county is close to 50/50, but platform choice drives the visible skew.

Behavioral trends to know

  • Facebook is the community backbone: school athletics, church events, festivals, local government, lost-and-found, and especially buy/sell/trade via Marketplace.
  • Group-first behavior: Residents join hyperlocal groups (city/county alerts, yard sales, Hispanic community groups, youth sports, agriculture/farm swaps). Engagement is higher in groups than on Pages.
  • Local information utility: Severe weather, road closures, school schedules, and high school sports drive spikes in engagement.
  • Video-first consumption: Short-form (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) outperforms static posts; YouTube used for how-to, home repair, small-engine/farm equipment content.
  • Shopping and services: Marketplace and local business promos perform well; couponing and “what’s open now” posts see quick traction.
  • Language/community: Spanish-language Facebook pages, WhatsApp chats, and bilingual posts help reach Latino households and shift workers.
  • Timing: Engagement often clusters early morning (6:30–8:30 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.), with weekend mid-morning peaks; school-year calendars shape weekday activity.
  • Trust pathway: User-generated recommendations and word-of-mouth in groups outperform brand ads; live video from local events or Q&A with officials earns strong comments/shares.

Sources informing estimates: Pew Research Center (2024 U.S. Social Media Use), DataReportal/GlobalStats trendlines, Indiana/rural broadband adoption patterns, and typical rural Midwest platform skews.