Clinton County Local Demographic Profile

Clinton County, Indiana — key demographics (latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates; primarily 2019–2023 ACS 5-year and 2023 population estimate)

  • Population: ~33,100 (2023 est.)
  • Age:
    • Under 5: ~6–7%
    • Under 18: ~25–26%
    • 65 and over: ~16%
    • Median age: ~38
  • Gender:
    • Female: ~49–50%
    • Male: ~50–51%
  • Race and Hispanic origin:
    • White alone: ~86–88%
    • Black or African American alone: ~1%
    • American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~0.7–0.9%
    • Asian alone: ~0.5–0.7%
    • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: ~0.1%
    • Two or more races: ~5–6%
    • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~18–20%
    • White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~74–77%
  • Households:
    • Total households: ~12,500–12,700
    • Persons per household (avg): ~2.7–2.8

Notes: Figures are estimates and rounded; for precision, consult U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts and ACS 2019–2023 5-year tables for Clinton County, IN.

Email Usage in Clinton County

Clinton County, IN snapshot (pop. ~33K; density ~82 people/sq. mi.)

Estimated email users

  • Total users: ~24K (range 22–26K), derived by applying national usage rates to local population.
  • Adults (18+): 22–23K use email (90% of ~25K adults).
  • Teens (13–17): ~1.5–2K use email (about 70–80%).

Age distribution of email use (est., reflecting U.S. patterns)

  • 18–29: ~95%
  • 30–49: ~95%
  • 50–64: ~90%
  • 65+: ~75–80%
  • 13–17: ~70–80% (often for school/accounts)

Gender split

  • Roughly even (male ≈ female); minimal difference in use rates.

Digital access and trends (ACS/FCC-informed estimates)

  • ~85% of households have an internet subscription; ~75–82% have fixed broadband (cable/DSL/fiber).
  • ~10–15% are smartphone-only households.
  • Adoption has risen since 2018, with gradual fiber expansion and decreasing DSL reliance.
  • Frankfort and town centers typically have cable/fiber; outlying rural townships more likely rely on DSL or fixed wireless.
  • Most residents have access to ≥100/20 Mbps fixed service, but rural pockets face slower speeds/limited provider choice.

Notes: Figures are estimates combining U.S. email usage norms (Pew-type findings) with local population and ACS S2801-style internet subscription data for similar Indiana counties.

Mobile Phone Usage in Clinton County

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Clinton County, Indiana

Overview

  • Context: Rural county centered on Frankfort, with a notably large Hispanic/Latino population for Indiana and a manufacturing/ag economy. These characteristics drive heavier reliance on mobile data and prepaid plans than the statewide average.

User estimates (best-available estimates using ACS population ~33k, 75% adults, Pew smartphone adoption, and FCC broadband availability)

  • Unique mobile users (age 13+): ~23,000–25,000
    • Adult smartphone users: ~21,000–23,000 (assumes 85–90% adult ownership)
    • Teens (13–17) with smartphones: ~1,800–2,100
  • Wireless-only voice households (no landline): ~9,000–9,500 households, about 72–78% of ~12,200 households (slightly above Indiana’s ~70–75%)
  • Smartphone-only internet users (no home broadband): ~5,000–6,000 adults (about 20–25% vs. roughly 15–18% statewide)
  • Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) for home internet (T-Mobile/Verizon LTE/5G): ~1,500–2,500 households, a higher share than statewide due to limited cable/fiber outside Frankfort

Demographic usage patterns

  • Hispanic/Latino community: County share ~2–3x the state average. Higher likelihood of smartphone-only access, heavier use of WhatsApp/Meta apps, international calling, and prepaid/MVNO plans (e.g., Metro by T-Mobile, Cricket, Boost). Spanish-language customer support and billing are more influential than in most Indiana counties.
  • Age: A mix of young families and older rural residents. Younger cohort boosts overall smartphone penetration; older adults 65+ adoption trails the state slightly but is offset by family-plan uptake.
  • Income/plan mix: Median household income modestly below the state average; prepaid and budget Android devices are more common than statewide. Multi-line family plans with large data buckets and hotspot add-ons are prevalent for homework and shift work.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

  • Carriers: AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile operate throughout the county. T-Mobile’s 5G mid-band and Verizon C-Band are strongest in and around Frankfort; AT&T offers broad low-band 5G with capacity nodes in town.
  • 5G: Mid-band 5G capacity is concentrated in the population centers and along main state routes; low-band 5G/LTE covers most rural areas. Outdoor coverage is generally solid; indoor coverage can struggle in metal-clad manufacturing buildings and some farm homes.
  • Capacity hotspots and weak spots:
    • Higher traffic: Frankfort, schools, healthcare facilities, and during shift changes at plants.
    • Weaker/spotty: Low-lying farm areas, edges between towns, and inside large metal buildings; signal boosters/DAS are common remedies.
  • Backhaul and wired competition: Frankfort has cable and some fiber; many rural areas still rely on older DSL or have no cable option, creating strong demand for mobile hotspots and 5G FWA. Electric cooperative fiber builds reach parts of the county but are not yet universal.
  • Public connectivity: Schools and libraries provide Wi‑Fi and hotspot lending; these programs see heavier use than in many Indiana counties because smartphone-only households are more common.

How Clinton County differs from the Indiana state picture

  • Higher smartphone-only and wireless-only reliance: Due to rural broadband gaps and income mix, mobile is the primary internet for more households than the state average.
  • Stronger FWA uptake: 5G/LTE home internet fills coverage gaps outside Frankfort, giving FWA a bigger role than statewide.
  • More prepaid/MVNO usage and bilingual needs: The county’s larger Hispanic population drives above-average use of prepaid plans, WhatsApp-centric communication, and need for Spanish-language support.
  • Capacity patterns: Less interstate-driven traffic and more localized surges around factories and schools; indoor coverage fixes (DAS/boosters) matter more than in urban counties.
  • Device mix: Slight tilt toward budget Android devices and hotspot add-ons compared with the state overall.

Notes and assumptions

  • Figures are derived from ACS population/household counts, Pew smartphone adoption trends, CDC wireless-only household estimates, and FCC broadband availability patterns as of 2023–2024. Exact, carrier-specific counts are not publicly reported; ranges reflect county demographics and rural infrastructure conditions.

Social Media Trends in Clinton County

Below is a concise, county‑level snapshot based on modeled estimates (blending 2020–2024 Census/ACS demographics for Clinton County, IN with Pew/state/rural Midwest social media patterns). Treat figures as directional; validate with platform ad reach tools for campaigns.

Headline user stats

  • Population: ~33,000; adults (18+): ~25,000.
  • Active social media users: ~18,000–21,000 residents (roughly 70–75% of adults; adding most teens 13–17 pushes the total toward the high end).

Age mix among active users (share of users)

  • 13–17: ~9–11% (very high daily use; Snapchat/TikTok dominant).
  • 18–29: ~22–26%.
  • 30–49: ~33–37% (largest slice; heavy Facebook/YouTube, rising IG Reels).
  • 50–64: ~19–23%.
  • 65+: ~10–13% (primarily Facebook and YouTube).

Gender breakdown (among active users)

  • Female: ~52–54%.
  • Male: ~46–48%.
  • Note: Platform skews vary (FB/IG/Pinterest more female; YouTube/X/LinkedIn more male).

Most‑used platforms (adults; approximate monthly use)

  • YouTube: 76–82%.
  • Facebook (core app): 68–74%.
  • Facebook Groups: 55–60% (very active for hyperlocal info).
  • Instagram: 38–45%.
  • TikTok: 30–38% (higher in under‑35s).
  • Snapchat: 26–34% overall; 70–85% of ages 13–24.
  • Pinterest: 22–28% (skews female 25–64).
  • WhatsApp: 20–28% overall; 40–55% among Hispanic/Latino residents.
  • X (Twitter): 12–18% (news/sports niche).
  • LinkedIn: 14–20% (commuters/professionals).
  • Nextdoor: 5–8% (limited rural penetration).
  • Facebook Messenger: 60–65% monthly; Marketplace: 35–45% monthly.

Behavioral trends to know

  • Hyperlocal hubs: Facebook Groups anchor community life (school updates, sports, churches, yard sale/buy‑sell‑trade, lost & found, local government and emergency management).
  • Video first: Short‑form clips (TikTok/IG Reels/FB Reels) outperform static posts; local sports highlights, weather, farm/4H content, and county events drive shares.
  • Commerce: Facebook Marketplace and live sales by local boutiques are common; ag/auto tools and seasonal items see spikes.
  • Trust and news: Residents follow county/city pages (sheriff, EMA, schools). Rumors often circulate in closed groups; official posts with clear visuals and plain language get traction.
  • Language/bicultural use: Frankfort’s sizable Hispanic/Latino community engages heavily on Facebook and WhatsApp; bilingual (EN/ES) posts materially lift reach and shares.
  • Messaging culture: Family and team coordination via Messenger and WhatsApp; teens lean on Snapchat for daily streaks and group chats.
  • Timing: Peaks around 6–8 a.m., lunch hour, and 7–10 p.m.; Friday night/Saturday bumps during school sports seasons.

Notes on confidence

  • Strong confidence in platform rank order and behaviors; medium confidence in percentage ranges. For precise planning, check live reach in Meta Ads, TikTok Ads, and Google/YouTube for Clinton County ZIPs.