Crawford County

Here are the latest Census-based snapshots for Crawford County, Indiana. Figures are rounded; source notes at bottom.

Population

• 2023 population estimate: ~10.1k
• 2020 Census: 10,526

Age

• Median age: ~43–44 years
• Under 18: ~23%
• 65 and over: ~21%

Sex

• Female: ~49.5–50%
• Male: ~50–50.5%

Race/ethnicity (ACS, share of total population)

• White alone: ~94–95%
• Black or African American alone: ~0.5–1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.3–0.6%
• Asian alone: ~0.1–0.3%
• Two or more races: ~3–4%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~1.5–2%
• White alone, not Hispanic: ~93–94%

Households

• Total households: ~4,000
• Average household size: ~2.45–2.50
• Family households: ~65–70% of households
• Average family size: ~3.0

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (DP02/DP05, S0101, S1101) and Vintage 2023 Population Estimates; 2020 Decennial Census.

Summary: Email usage in Crawford County, Indiana (estimates)

• Population baseline: ~10.5k residents (2020 Census). Adult share ~77–79%.
• Estimated email users: ~6,500–7,500 residents (≈75–85% of ages 13+), reflecting near‑universal email among working-age adults and students and lower but growing use among seniors.
• Age distribution of users:
  • 13–24: ~85–90% have email (school/work requirements).
  • 25–64: ~90–95%.
  • 65+: ~70–80%.
• Gender split: ~50/50; no meaningful difference in email adoption or frequency.
• Digital access trends (ACS-style indicators for rural Indiana counties; Crawford is similar):
  • ~80% of households report a broadband subscription.
  • ~10–15% have no home internet.
  • ~10–20% are smartphone‑only internet users.
  • Computer access in household: ~80–85%.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Low population density (~34 people/sq mi across ~300+ sq mi) and hilly/forested areas near Hoosier National Forest contribute to patchy fixed broadband outside town centers.
  • Connectivity improving via ongoing fiber builds and state programs (e.g., Indiana Next Level Connections), with libraries/schools providing critical public access.

Notes: Figures are synthesized from U.S. Census/ACS internet subscription patterns, Pew Research on email use, and rural-Indiana broadband trends.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Crawford County, Indiana (with contrasts to statewide patterns)

Headline takeaways

• Mobile is essential but constrained by coverage and backhaul: residents rely on phones for connectivity more than the Indiana average, yet face more dead zones and slower speeds.
• Fewer smartphones and less 5G than statewide: adoption skews lower, upgrade cycles are longer, and mid-band 5G is sparse outside highway corridors.
• Demographics amplify the gap: older age structure and lower incomes correlate with lower smartphone uptake and higher prepaid use.

User estimates

• Population and households: roughly 10,200–10,600 residents and about 4,000–4,300 households.
• Unique mobile phone users: approximately 8,000–9,000 people use a mobile phone of any kind.
• Smartphone users: about 5,900–6,400 adult smartphone users (roughly 72–78% of adults), below Indiana’s ~85%+ adult smartphone adoption.
• Wireless-only households (no landline): approximately 70–80% of households, similar to or slightly above statewide; however, more of these households depend on cellular data for home internet service than the state average.
• Mobile-only home internet: an estimated 22–28% of households rely primarily on a cellular data plan at home versus roughly 12–15% statewide.

Demographic patterns affecting usage

• Age: Crawford County has a larger share of residents 65+ than the state. Smartphone adoption among seniors is notably lower, pulling down the overall rate relative to Indiana.
• Income and plans: Lower median household income than the state average correlates with:
  • Higher share of prepaid and budget plans.
  • Longer device replacement cycles.
  • Greater Android share and lower iPhone penetration than statewide averages.
• Education and digital skills: Lower bachelor’s-degree attainment than the state average tends to coincide with lower adoption of advanced apps and services; many households center usage on voice, SMS, Facebook, and YouTube rather than data-heavy or enterprise apps.
• Youth/teens: School-aged users often rely on shared family plans or prepaid lines; after-school and evening usage spikes can strain limited sector capacity in small towns.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Macro sites and density: Expect on the order of a low-teens number of macro cell sites countywide, clustered along major corridors and towns, with large coverage footprints but notable gaps in hollows, forested areas, and along river bluffs.
• 4G LTE: Baseline LTE covers towns and primary roads, but capacity can be limited. Typical real-world speeds often range 5–25 Mbps in many rural sectors, below the state’s more common 30–100 Mbps in suburban areas.
• 5G:
  • Low-band 5G is present mainly near highways and town centers; coverage is spotty elsewhere.
  • Mid-band (e.g., T-Mobile n41, AT&T/Verizon C-band) is limited compared with Indiana’s metro/suburban counties, so 5G performance uplift is inconsistent.
• Backhaul: Several sites likely run on microwave backhaul; fiber-fed sites are concentrated near interstate or utility corridors, limiting peak throughput and increasing congestion versus fiber-rich parts of the state.
• Dead zones and reliability:
  • Terrain (wooded hills, river valleys) creates persistent dead spots off main roads.
  • Residents commonly rely on Wi‑Fi calling at home; power outages can disrupt both broadband and mobile if sites lack robust backup.
• Competing carriers:
  • All three nationwide carriers have footprint; coverage leadership can vary by corridor. FirstNet (AT&T) coverage tends to be strongest on primary public-safety routes, but not uniformly strong off-corridor.
• Public and community access:
  • Libraries, schools, and some municipal buildings provide critical Wi‑Fi offload. These access points are used more intensively than in urban/suburban Indiana, reflecting the higher share of households lacking reliable fixed broadband.

How Crawford County differs from Indiana overall

• Lower smartphone penetration and slower upgrade cycles.
• Higher dependence on mobile for home internet due to limited wired options; more households are “cellular-data-only.”
• More coverage gaps and weaker indoor signal away from highways and town centers.
• Less mid-band 5G availability; performance gains from 5G are less widespread.
• Plan mix tilts toward prepaid and budget tiers; heavier use of Wi‑Fi calling and messaging to manage limited coverage and data caps.

Data notes and assumptions

• Estimates synthesize: U.S. Census/ACS (computer and internet use, device ownership), FCC Broadband Map patterns for rural southern Indiana, Pew Research on smartphone adoption by age/income, and typical rural tower density/backhaul constraints. County-level device and carrier-share data are not directly published; figures above are reasoned ranges aligned to rural Indiana profiles and Crawford County demographics and terrain.
• For planning or grant applications, validate with latest ACS 5-year tables (S2801/S2802), FCC fabric/location data, state broadband office maps, and carrier coverage/performance tests along key corridors and population clusters.

Below is a concise, best-available snapshot. Note: Platforms don’t publish county-level stats; figures are modeled from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. usage rates, adjusted for rural counties, plus the county’s age profile. Treat all percentages as estimates.

Population baseline

• Total population: ~10.5K; adults (18+): ~8.2K
• Estimated active social media users (any platform): 6.0K–6.5K total (most are adults; nearly all teens use at least one platform)

Most-used platforms among adults (estimated reach of adult residents)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 70–75%
• Instagram: 35–40%
• TikTok: 30–35%
• Pinterest: 30–35% (skews female)
• Snapchat: 20–25% (skews under 30)
• X/Twitter: 12–18%
• LinkedIn: 15–20% (lower in rural, job-seekers/white-collar pockets)
• Reddit: 12–16%
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited neighborhood coverage in rural areas)

Age dynamics (who’s using what)

• Teens (13–17): Heavy on YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat; light on Facebook. Video- and peer-driven.
• 18–29: Multi-platform; Instagram + TikTok lead; Snapchat for messaging; YouTube for entertainment/learning.
• 30–49: Strong on Facebook (Groups, Marketplace), YouTube; growing Instagram usage.
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram light; TikTok rising for entertainment/DIY.
• 65+: Facebook (family, local news), YouTube (how-tos, church services).

Gender patterns

• Overall user base roughly balanced male/female.
• Higher female engagement on Facebook Groups/Pages and Pinterest; higher male engagement on YouTube and Reddit.
• Instagram audience slightly female-leaning; TikTok mixed but often female-leaning in 18–34.

Behavioral trends (local/rural patterns you can plan around)

• Community-first: High participation in local Facebook Groups (schools, churches, sports, buy/sell/trade, county events). Marketplace is a top utility.
• Video wins: Short vertical video (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) outperforms photos for reach; practical “before/after,” farm/outdoor, crafts/repair content resonates.
• Trust via peers: Word-of-mouth in Groups matters; comments and tags from known locals drive conversions more than links to websites.
• Messaging over forms: Many prefer Facebook Messenger or SMS for inquiries; keep CTAs “Message us” or “Call.”
• Mobile-centric: A noticeable share rely on mobile data; keep video short, captions on, minimal text on images.
• Timing: Peaks before work/school (6:30–8:30 a.m.), lunch (12–1 p.m.), evenings (7–9 p.m.). Spikes around school year, hunting season, holidays, county fair.
• Local news gap: Facebook fills local news/events; cross-posts from local radio/newspaper pages get traction.
• Ads: Simple geo-radius boosts work; lead magnets (giveaways, ticket promos) and “locals featured” creative perform best.

How to tighten the numbers

• Pull platform ad-tool reach for “Crawford County, IN” (Meta, Snapchat, TikTok, X, LinkedIn) to get live potential-reach counts.
• Combine with your page/group insights and YouTube analytics for a truer local picture.