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.
Table of Contents
Other Counties in Indiana
- Adams
- Allen
- Bartholomew
- Benton
- Blackford
- Boone
- Brown
- Carroll
- Cass
- Clark
- Clinton
- Crawford
- Daviess
- De Kalb
- Dearborn
- Decatur
- Delaware
- Dubois
- Elkhart
- Fayette
- Floyd
- Fountain
- Franklin
- Fulton
- Gibson
- Grant
- Greene
- Hamilton
- Hancock
- Harrison
- Hendricks
- Henry
- Howard
- Huntington
- Jackson
- Jasper
- Jay
- Jefferson
- Jennings
- Johnson
- Knox
- Kosciusko
- La Porte
- Lagrange
- Lake
- Lawrence
- Madison
- Marion
- Marshall
- Martin
- Miami
- Monroe
- Montgomery
- Morgan
- Newton
- Noble
- Ohio
- Orange
- Owen
- Parke
- Perry
- Pike
- Porter
- Posey
- Pulaski
- Putnam
- Randolph
- Ripley
- Rush
- Scott
- Shelby
- Spencer
- St Joseph
- Starke
- Steuben
- Sullivan
- Switzerland
- Tippecanoe
- Tipton
- Union
- Vanderburgh
- Vermillion
- Vigo
- Wabash
- Warren
- Warrick
- Washington
- Wayne
- Wells
- White
- Whitley