Clay County Local Demographic Profile

Here are current, high-level demographics for Clay County, Indiana.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates). Figures are rounded; ACS values have margins of error.

  • Population: 26,466 (2020 Census)
  • Age:
    • Median age: about 41 years
    • Under 18: ~22%
    • 65 and older: ~18%
  • Sex:
    • Female: ~50%
    • Male: ~50%
  • Race and ethnicity (ACS; race alone or in combination; Hispanic may be of any race):
    • White: ~95%
    • Black or African American: ~0.5–1%
    • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.2–0.3%
    • Asian: ~0.2–0.3%
    • Two or more races: ~3–4%
    • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~1.5–2%
  • Households:
    • Total households: ~10,200
    • Average household size: ~2.5 persons
    • Family households: ~67% of households
    • Married-couple households: ~50%
    • Owner-occupied housing: ~78–80% of occupied units

Email Usage in Clay County

Clay County, Indiana snapshot

  • Population and density: ~26.4k residents; ~70–75 people per sq. mile. Largest town/seat: Brazil; main corridors US‑40 and near I‑70.
  • Estimated email users: ~19–20k residents use email at least occasionally (≈90% of adults plus a majority of teens).
  • Age distribution of email users (approx. share of users):
    • 13–17: 5–6%
    • 18–34: 22–25%
    • 35–64: 50–55%
    • 65+: 16–20% (usage and checking frequency taper with age)
  • Gender split: Near parity (~49–51% each). Slight female tilt among users due to older age skew.
  • Digital access trends:
    • Household broadband subscription roughly 75–85%, highest in/around Brazil; more gaps in sparsely populated townships.
    • Access mix: cable/fiber in town centers; DSL and fixed wireless common rurally; satellite used at the fringes.
    • Smartphone-only internet: roughly 10–15% of households; mobile 4G/5G covers most populated corridors.
    • Public institutions (schools, libraries) are important access points for students and lower‑income households.

Notes: Figures are estimates derived from national/state adoption rates scaled to Clay County’s size; local conditions can vary by township.

Mobile Phone Usage in Clay County

Clay County, Indiana: mobile phone usage snapshot (with county-versus-state contrasts)

User estimates

  • Population baseline: ~26,300 residents; ~20,200 adults (18+).
  • Adult smartphone users: roughly 16,500–18,000 (about 82–89% of adults). Method: applied Pew’s 2023 ownership rates (≈92% ages 18–64; ≈60–65% ages 65+) to Clay’s older age mix, which pulls the county slightly below Indiana’s statewide adult average.
  • Households relying on cellular as their primary/only home internet: estimated 1,800–2,300 households (≈18–23% of ~10,000–10,400 households), notably higher than the state average. Basis: ACS S2801 “cellular data plan only” tends to run higher in rural counties than statewide figures.
  • Wireless home internet (5G/LTE FWA) adoption: meaningfully higher share than the state average, especially outside Brazil and along major corridors, where cable/fiber options thin out.

Demographic breakdown (what’s distinctive in Clay)

  • Age: Older-than-state profile (larger 65+ share) suppresses overall smartphone penetration versus Indiana. Seniors remain the main gap (≈60–65% ownership vs >90% for working-age adults).
  • Income/plan type: Lower median household income than the state tilts more users to prepaid and value MVNO plans; prepaid share likely above the statewide norm. Effects: tighter data caps, more hotspot use, and slower video throttles are more common than in urban Indiana.
  • Device mix: Skews a bit more Android than the Indiana average (cost sensitivity and prepaid channels), which can affect app availability, security update cadence, and enterprise MDM uptake.
  • Smartphone-only internet users: Higher proportion of residents use phones as their primary way online (limited fixed broadband), a pattern more typical of rural counties than Indiana’s metro counties.
  • Work and commute: A larger share of outdoor/vehicle-based jobs (trades, logistics, extractive industries) increases dependence on reliable voice/text and coverage along roads versus indoor 5G performance priorities common in cities.

Digital infrastructure highlights

  • Coverage footprint: County-wide 4G/LTE is common; 5G low-band covers primary roads and the Brazil area. Mid-band 5G (capacity) is concentrated around Brazil and major highways; interior rural zones often fall back to LTE. This creates a sharper town-versus-country performance gap than state averages.
  • Capacity vs coverage tradeoff: Rural sites lean on low-band spectrum (e.g., 600/700/850 MHz) for reach; fewer mid-band sectors per capita than urban Indiana means more evening/weekend slowdowns in Clay’s outlying areas.
  • Terrain and vegetation: Rolling, wooded areas and low-lying spots create localized dead zones and indoor signal challenges, a bigger issue here than in flatter, denser parts of the state.
  • Backhaul: Not all rural towers have robust fiber backhaul; some remain microwave-fed, constraining 5G capacity bursts. Recent state-funded rural fiber builds in west-central Indiana help, but Clay still lags urban counties on mid-band 5G densification.
  • Public safety and resilience: FirstNet build-outs have improved AT&T low-band coverage for emergency services, but commercial mid-band capacity remains the limiting factor for high-throughput use outside towns.
  • Fixed alternatives and spillover effects: Cable/fiber are strongest in and around Brazil; elsewhere, residents lean on LTE/5G FWA plans. This raises daytime cell-site loads (school/telework/telehealth) more than in state metros, where fixed broadband carries most of that traffic.

How Clay County differs from Indiana overall

  • Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration due to an older age mix and income profile.
  • Higher reliance on cellular-only home internet and on mobile hotspots/FWA to fill fixed-broadband gaps.
  • Higher prepaid/value-plan share; more conservative data use and more frequent throttling than state urban averages.
  • Larger town–rural performance gap: mid-band 5G capacity is spottier outside Brazil; evening slowdowns and indoor coverage issues are more common than statewide norms.
  • Device ecosystem tilts more Android; iOS share is comparatively higher in Indiana’s metro counties.
  • Mobility-first usage (voice/SMS and navigation along corridors) matters more; app-heavy, high-throughput use is constrained outside town centers relative to the state average.

Notes on sources and method

  • Population, household counts, and age structure: 2020 Census/ACS 5-year for small counties; figures rounded.
  • Smartphone ownership and seniors’ gap: Pew Research Center (2023) applied to county age mix.
  • Cellular-only and broadband reliance: ACS S2801 patterns for rural counties used to bound estimates; Clay’s values are typically above statewide averages.
  • Coverage and 5G capacity: Synthesized from national carrier public coverage maps (2024), FCC/National Broadband availability indicators, and rural infrastructure patterns in west-central Indiana.
  • Because exact carrier performance and tower/backhaul details vary by sector and are updated frequently, figures are presented as ranges and qualitative contrasts rather than precise counts.

Social Media Trends in Clay County

Here’s a concise, locally oriented snapshot. Figures are estimates for Clay County, IN, derived by applying recent U.S./Indiana usage rates (Pew Research Center, ACS) to the county’s population.

Baseline and user stats

  • Population: roughly 26–27k residents; about 20–21k are adults (18+).
  • Social media users: about 70–75% of adults use at least one platform ≈ 14–16k adult users. Adding teens (13–17), total local users likely 16–18k.

Most‑used platforms (share of local adults; estimates)

  • YouTube: 80–85%
  • Facebook: 65–70% (highest daily use among 30+; dominant for local news/groups)
  • Instagram: 45–50%
  • TikTok: 30–35% (skews under 35)
  • Snapchat: 25–30% (very high among teens/early 20s)
  • Pinterest: 30–35% (majority female)
  • LinkedIn: 20–25% (lower in rural counties)
  • X (Twitter): 20–25% (light daily use)
  • Reddit: 18–22% (skews male, younger)
  • Nextdoor: <10% (Facebook Groups fill the “neighborhood” role)

Age‑group patterns (platform adoption tendencies)

  • Teens (13–17): Very high YouTube; strong TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram; minimal Facebook.
  • 18–29: Nearly universal YouTube; strong Instagram/Snapchat; TikTok common; Facebook secondary.
  • 30–49: YouTube and Facebook dominate; Instagram moderate; TikTok mixed; Snapchat drops.
  • 50–64: Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram light; TikTok limited.
  • 65+: Facebook first; YouTube moderate; others low.

Gender breakdown (tendencies)

  • Women: Slightly higher Facebook and Instagram engagement; Pinterest heavily female (≈70–80% of users); more local shopping and community content.
  • Men: More Reddit and X; strong YouTube across both genders; more sports/outdoors/auto content.

Behavioral trends in Clay County

  • Facebook is the community hub: school updates, youth and high‑school sports, church and civic events, yard sales, lost/found pets, local politics, and Marketplace buying/selling.
  • Video is rising: YouTube for how‑to, DIY, hunting/fishing, home and farm repair; short‑form Reels/TikTok for local businesses and events.
  • Business usage: Local boutiques, restaurants, gyms, salons lean on Facebook + Instagram; boosted posts with tight geo‑targeting perform well. DMs (especially Messenger) are a common customer‑service channel.
  • Teens and young adults: Snapchat for messaging/streaks; TikTok/Instagram for entertainment and trend discovery.
  • Timing: Engagement typically higher evenings and weekends; local events drive spikes.
  • Messaging mix: Facebook Messenger is widespread; WhatsApp usage lower than national average.

Notes on method and limits

  • County‑level platform statistics aren’t published; figures are modeled from national/state rural usage patterns and Clay County’s demographics. Treat percentages as reasonable local estimates, not exact counts.