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.