Daviess County Local Demographic Profile
To ensure I give you the exact figures you need: do you want the latest ACS 2019–2023 estimates or the 2020 Decennial Census counts (less current but official)? I can provide both side-by-side if preferred.
Email Usage in Daviess County
Daviess County, IN snapshot (approximate)
Population/connectivity context: 34,000 residents; largely rural with low-to-moderate density (75–80/sq mi). Broadband is strongest in/around Washington; many outlying areas depend on fixed wireless/DSL, with fiber expanding. About 80–85% of households report an internet subscription in recent ACS data; smartphone‑only access is common in rural Indiana. The county has a sizable Amish community (roughly 10–14%), which lowers digital and email adoption.
Estimated email users: 22,000–26,000 residents use email at least occasionally (roughly two‑thirds to three‑quarters of the total population), based on national email adoption adjusted for local rural/Amish factors and age mix.
Age distribution of email use (share of each group using email):
- Teens 13–17: ~80–90%
- 18–29: ~95–98%
- 30–49: ~95–97%
- 50–64: ~90–93%
- 65+: ~75–85%
Gender split: Approximately even; national surveys show minimal difference in email adoption by gender.
Digital access trends: Rising fiber availability, but rural gaps persist; mobile‑first users are overrepresented compared to urban counties. Lower home broadband and cultural factors (Amish) modestly suppress email intensity among older and lower‑income residents.
Notes: Estimates derive from U.S. Census/ACS broadband indicators and national Pew‑style email adoption, calibrated to local rural/Amish context.
Mobile Phone Usage in Daviess County
Summary: Mobile phone usage in Daviess County, Indiana (with emphasis on how it differs from statewide patterns)
Headline estimates (order-of-magnitude, based on population, rural adoption patterns, and the county’s large Amish community)
- Population base: roughly 34–35k residents.
- Mobile phone users (any mobile device): about 24–30k people.
- Smartphone users: about 22–27k. How these were derived:
- Adults make up roughly 73–76% of the population (≈25–27k). Non-Amish adults tend to follow statewide/national patterns (≈82–88% smartphone ownership), while Amish adults have far lower smartphone adoption and more limited basic-phone usage. Including teens, total mobile users land in the mid‑20-thousands.
What’s different from state-level
- Lower overall smartphone penetration: Countywide smartphone adoption is a few points lower than Indiana’s average because Daviess has one of the state’s largest Old Order Amish communities. Many Amish households restrict or avoid smartphones; where mobile is used, it skews toward basic/feature phones and shared or business-only devices.
- Higher share of basic/feature phones: Compared with Indiana as a whole, Daviess shows a noticeably larger slice of voice-and-text–only usage.
- More coverage variability: Outside the city of Washington and the I‑69 corridor, residents report more frequent signal gaps and LTE-only areas than typical in urban/suburban Indiana counties.
- Usage patterns skew to voice/text: App-centric behaviors (video streaming on the go, gig-economy apps, mobile banking) are a bit less concentrated than statewide averages, reflecting both cultural norms and rural coverage/speed constraints.
Demographic breakdown (drivers of the differences)
- Amish and conservative Anabaptist communities (roughly 10–20% of county residents) materially reduce smartphone penetration; where phones are permitted, basic phones and community/shared access are common.
- Younger age profile than the state average (larger households, more children) means a bigger share of dependents; among non-Amish teens, smartphone adoption is high, but Amish teens often face restrictions, moderating the overall youth smartphone rate.
- Settlement pattern: Washington (the county seat) and the I‑69 corridor have urban-like mobile options; farms and smaller settlements show rural usage patterns, including more reliance on signal boosters and Wi‑Fi calling.
Digital infrastructure highlights
- Carrier presence: All three national carriers operate in the county. The strongest and most consistent service is in and around Washington and along I‑69; mid-band 5G is most common there. Many rural tracts remain LTE-first with 5G coverage that is spotty or absent.
- Known weak spots: Low-lying areas and timbered/farm tracts away from highways see more dead zones and indoor coverage challenges than the Indiana average; external antennas/boosters are used more often than in metro counties.
- Backhaul and fiber: The city core and select subdivisions have fiber from regional providers; outside town, independent telcos and electric co-ops have been expanding FTTH in phases, but coverage is still patchy compared to urban Indiana. Where fiber isn’t available, residents lean on fixed wireless and satellite; that, in turn, pushes some households to use mobile data as a stopgap.
- Fixed wireless and 5G Home: Availability around Washington and along I‑69 is better than in outlying areas; this can reduce reliance on mobile hotspots in those corridors but leaves many rural users still dependent on handset tethering or WISPs.
Estimated counts (to orient planning; not a census)
- Any-mobile users: 24–30k (majority smartphones).
- Smartphone users: 22–27k; concentrated among non‑Amish residents, town dwellers, and commuters along I‑69/U.S.‑50.
- Basic/feature phone users: 2–5k; disproportionately in Amish and older rural households.
Implications for service and outreach
- Network planning: Incremental tower infill and 5G upgrades away from I‑69 and outside Washington would close the county’s most persistent coverage and capacity gaps.
- Device mix: Stock and support for rugged/basic phones and strong voice/SMS service matter more here than in many Indiana counties.
- Channel strategy: Community institutions (schools, libraries, farm supply and hardware stores) remain valuable touchpoints; app-only service models will underperform relative to urban Indiana.
Notes and methods
- Figures are synthesized from the county’s population size and age structure, national/rural smartphone ownership rates, and the outsized effect of a large Amish community on device adoption. They should be treated as planning estimates; for precision, validate against the latest Census/ACS demographics, FCC mobile coverage maps, state broadband office data, and Amish population estimates from the Young Center or similar sources.
Social Media Trends in Daviess County
Below is a concise, county-tailored snapshot. Note: There’s no official, public county-level survey for Daviess County, IN; figures are modeled from U.S. Census/ACS demographics and Pew Research’s 2023–2024 social media benchmarks, adjusted for rural patterns and the county’s sizable Amish/Anabaptist communities (whose lower smartphone adoption modestly depresses overall usage).
Headline user stats
- Population context: ~34K residents; ~24–25K adults.
- Social media users (adults): 63–70% → roughly 15–18K adults.
- Daily users: ~60–65% of users (about 9–12K adults), concentrated on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok.
- Multi-platform use: Typical user active on 2–3 platforms; younger adults 4+.
Most-used platforms (estimated share of adults; overlaps by design)
- YouTube: 70–76%
- Facebook: 62–68% (Marketplace is especially strong)
- Instagram: 33–40%
- TikTok: 25–32%
- Snapchat: 22–28%
- Pinterest: 20–26% (skews female)
- LinkedIn: 14–20% (skews to college-educated/professional roles)
- X/Twitter: 12–16% (news/sports followers)
- WhatsApp: 10–15% (friend/family micro-clusters)
- Reddit: 9–13% (younger/male skew)
- Nextdoor: 3–6% (sparser in rural areas)
Age-group patterns (share using at least one platform; platform lean)
- 13–17: 85–95%; heavy on TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube; Instagram strong; Facebook minimal except Groups/Events.
- 18–29: 95%+; Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat dominant; YouTube universal; Facebook for Events/Marketplace.
- 30–49: ~85–90%; Facebook and YouTube anchor; Instagram moderate; TikTok rising; Pinterest for projects/home.
- 50–64: ~70–78%; Facebook primary (Groups, local news, Marketplace), YouTube for how‑to and interests.
- 65+: ~50–60%; Facebook for family/church/community; YouTube for news, music, tutorials. Note: Local Amish and conservative Anabaptist households reduce smartphone/social adoption across all ages relative to similar rural counties.
Gender breakdown (directional)
- Overall split among users close to county population (~50/50), with:
- Women: slightly higher Facebook and Pinterest; active in school/church/community Groups; Marketplace usage high.
- Men: higher YouTube, Reddit, X; strong in how‑to, equipment, sports, and hunting/fishing content.
Behavioral trends to know
- Facebook = community hub: school sports, church bulletins, county offices, Washington Times-Herald updates, local buy/sell/auction, and farm/ranch equipment. Private Groups drive engagement.
- Marketplace matters: heavy secondhand and farm/DIY trade; “new-to-you” and practical value posts perform best.
- Video-first habits: YouTube for repairs, agriculture, small-engine/mechanical, home projects; short-form Reels/Shorts/TikTok get strong completion when local and practical.
- Event-driven engagement: Fairs, auctions, sports schedules, festivals, and church events spike reach; Events and simple flyers shared in Groups outperform generic ads.
- Trust via local voices: Content from known local entities (schools, churches, fire/EMS, county agencies, coaches) gains more engagement and shares than national pages.
- Messaging layer: Facebook Messenger is the default backchannel; WhatsApp is niche; SMS still common for coordination.
- Timing: Evenings (7–9 pm) and weekends see the highest activity; midday mini-spikes around lunch/shift changes.
- Creative tone: Straightforward, values-centered, family/community-first messaging outperforms snark or flashy “coastal” creative. Clear offers and photos of real local people/places work best.
Method and sources (abridged)
- Benchmarks: Pew Research Center Social Media Use (2023–2024) for platform penetration by age/gender and rural vs urban deltas.
- Demographics: U.S. Census/ACS for county population and age structure; rural broadband adoption norms applied.
- Local adjustment: Slight downward adjustment for overall penetration to reflect the county’s notable Amish/Anabaptist presence and rural device/broadband mix.
Table of Contents
Other Counties in Indiana
- Adams
- Allen
- Bartholomew
- Benton
- Blackford
- Boone
- Brown
- Carroll
- Cass
- Clark
- Clay
- Clinton
- Crawford
- 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