Huntington County

Huntington County, Indiana — key demographics

Population size

• 36,662 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: ~40 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~23%
• 18–64: ~58%
• 65 and over: ~18%

Gender

• Female: ~50.5%
• Male: ~49.5%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2019–2023)

• White alone: ~94%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.3%
• Asian alone: ~0.5%
• Two or more races: ~4%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~3–4%

Household data (ACS 2019–2023)

• Households: ~14,600
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~66% of households
• Married-couple families: ~48% of households
• Nonfamily households: ~34% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~30%
• Homeownership rate: ~75–76%
• Housing units: ~15,900; vacancy rate: ~6%

Insights

• Stable population just under 37k with a median age around 40, indicating a slightly older-than-state-average profile.
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White population with modest racial/ethnic diversity.
• Household structure skews toward family and owner-occupied homes, with average household size near 2.5.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates). Figures are estimates and may not sum perfectly due to rounding.

Huntington County, IN snapshot

• Scale and connectivity: Population ~36,900 across ~386 sq mi (≈95 people/sq mi). About 83% of households have a broadband subscription and ~90% have a computer (ACS 2018–2022). Roughly 6% have no home internet; ~8% are smartphone‑only.
• Estimated email users: ≈22,600 adult email users. Method: 76% of residents are 18+ (28,200); ~87% of rural/suburban adults use the internet; ~92% of internet users use email.
• Age distribution of email users (approximate share → count): • 18–29: 19% → ~4,300 • 30–49: 34% → ~7,700 • 50–64: 27% → ~6,100 • 65+: 20% → ~4,500 Skews to 30–49 due to county age mix; seniors remain active but at lower adoption than younger adults.
• Gender split: Near parity; ~50% women, ~50% men among email users, mirroring county demographics.
• Digital access trends and implications: Broadband and device access are high but not universal; smartphone‑only users are meaningful. Email reach is broad across ages, with strongest penetration among 30–64. Mobile‑optimized, lightweight emails perform best given mixed speeds outside the City of Huntington. Local density suggests clustered high‑speed options in town and more variable fixed service in rural townships, reinforcing the value of email that renders well on mobile and low bandwidth.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Huntington County, Indiana

Scope and sources: Figures synthesize the latest available public datasets commonly used for local digital-use analysis, principally U.S. Census/ACS computer-and-internet tables (S2801/S2802, 2019–2023 5-year) and FCC/National Broadband Map mobile-coverage filings through 2024. Counts are estimated where required from those shares and the 2020 Census population baseline.

User estimates

• Population baseline: 36,662 (2020 Census). Adults account for roughly 77–78% of residents, or about 28,000–28,600 adults.
• Smartphone users: Approximately 25,000–26,000 adult residents use a smartphone regularly. This aligns county ACS smartphone-in-household levels with national adult adoption in 2023 and Huntington County’s age mix.
• Household device/plan profile (ACS-based estimates):
  • Households with a smartphone present: about 88–91% (Indiana ≈ 90–93%).
  • Households with a cellular data plan: about 82–86% (Indiana ≈ 80–84%).
  • Smartphone-only internet households (cellular data plan but no fixed broadband at home): about 16–19% locally, versus roughly 12–15% statewide.
  • Households with no internet subscription of any type: about 8–10% locally, versus roughly 6–8% statewide.

Demographic breakdown (how Huntington County differs from Indiana)

• Age:
  • Under 35 households show notably high smartphone-only reliance, approaching one in four locally, a few points above the state average for the same age group. This reflects a younger cohort’s comfort with mobile plans as primary home internet where fixed options are limited or cost-sensitive.
  • Age 65+ smartphone adoption lags the state by a few points, and 65+ households are more likely to have no internet subscription at all than their statewide peers.
• Income:
  • Households under $35,000 show elevated smartphone-only reliance, several points above the state, consistent with price-driven substitution of mobile data for home broadband.
  • Middle-income ($35,000–$75,000) households also lean mobile more than the state average, a signal of infrastructure or value-perception gaps outside the county seat.
• Education and tenure:
  • Households with a high-school education or less show higher smartphone-only rates than statewide peers.
  • Renters in the county are more often smartphone-only than renters statewide, indicating a cost and availability dynamic in multi-unit or older housing stock.
• Rurality:
  • Rural townships show lower fixed-broadband adoption and higher dependence on cellular data compared with Indiana’s overall rural average, pointing to localized access/price frictions.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Mobile coverage and performance:
  • 4G LTE is effectively universal along primary corridors and in/around the City of Huntington; there are persistent pockets of weaker signal in lower-density areas and along some wooded or riverine terrain.
  • 5G low-band is broadly available in the population centers; mid-band 5G coverage is concentrated in/near the city and along main highways, tapering in outer townships. This produces a larger urban–rural performance gap than the statewide pattern.
  • Practical takeaway: Mobility is good enough for many households to treat cellular as primary internet, but speeds and consistency drop off more sharply outside town than they do in many Indiana counties with denser fiber/cable footprints.
• Fixed-broadband context affecting mobile behavior:
  • Fixed broadband adoption is a few points lower than the Indiana average, consistent with higher smartphone-only use.
  • Fiber availability is expanding from the core outward but remains uneven; cable coverage is strong in the city and less consistent in rural blocks. Where only DSL or fixed wireless is on offer, residents are more likely to rely on mobile plans.
  • Affordability remains a driver: even when fixed service is available, price-sensitive households lean toward mobile-only, aided by promotional unlimited plans.

Key ways Huntington County diverges from the state

• Higher smartphone-only household share and higher cellular-data-plan uptake than Indiana overall, indicating greater reliance on mobile networks for home connectivity.
• Slightly lower fixed-broadband subscription rates and a larger urban–rural service-quality gap, reinforcing mobile substitution outside the city.
• More pronounced age and income effects: younger and lower-income households are more mobile-dependent than their statewide counterparts, and older residents are slightly more likely to be unconnected.
• 5G mid-band footprint is less uniform than the state average, concentrating capacity in/near the county seat and along highways, with quicker drop-off in outlying areas.

Implications

• Public services, healthcare, and schools should assume above-average mobile-first access patterns and design content for smartphone screens and variable bandwidth.
• Infrastructure efforts that expand affordable fiber or high-capacity fixed wireless into rural townships would likely reduce smartphone-only dependence and narrow the county’s digital gap versus the state.
• Programs targeting older adults and lower-income renters can produce outsized gains in connectivity, given higher-than-average local mobile-only and no-internet rates in those groups.

Social media usage in Huntington County, Indiana (2025 snapshot)

User base

• Population: 36,662 (2020 Census). Adults 18+: ≈28,600.
• Active social media users (13+): ≈23,000 residents, ≈63% of the total population. Derived from adult adoption of ~72–75% plus very high teen adoption.

Age groups (share using at least one platform; local estimates aligned to Pew U.S. rates)

• 13–17: ~95%
• 18–29: ~84%
• 30–49: ~80%
• 50–64: ~69%
• 65+: ~50%

Gender breakdown among local social media users

• Overall: ~52–54% female, ~46–48% male (mirrors county population and platform norms).
• By platform (approximate user mix):
  • Facebook ~54% F / 46% M
  • Instagram ~53% F / 47% M
  • TikTok ~60% F / 40% M
  • Snapchat ~56% F / 44% M
  • Pinterest ~75% F / 25% M
  • YouTube ~49% F / 51% M
  • LinkedIn ~50% F / 50% M
  • X (Twitter) ~44% F / 56% M
  • Reddit ~33% F / 67% M

Most‑used platforms locally (share of residents 13+ who use each; modeled from recent Pew platform penetration, adjusted to the county’s age mix)

• YouTube: 82%
• Facebook: 67%
• Instagram: 46%
• TikTok: 34%
• Snapchat: 31%
• Pinterest: 32%
• LinkedIn: 27%
• X (Twitter): 21%
• Reddit: 21%

Behavioral trends observed in similar-sized/rural‑suburban Indiana counties and consistent with Huntington County’s demographics

• Facebook is the default community hub: heavy use of Groups (schools, churches, youth sports, local government) and Marketplace for buy/sell/trade.
• YouTube is a daily utility across ages for how‑to, home/auto repair, farming/outdoor content, local sports, and product research.
• Under‑30 cohorts split attention between Snapchat (messaging/streaks, peer networks) and TikTok (short‑form entertainment, trends, local food/retail discovery); Instagram is secondary for highlights, sports, and events.
• 45+ cohorts concentrate on Facebook and YouTube; TikTok/Instagram usage rises among 30–44 but remains lower in 55+.
• Local news, weather, school closings, and event info drive high engagement; posts featuring recognizable places, community faces, and service updates outperform generic content.
• Video dominates: short vertical video (TikTok/Reels/Shorts) for reach; 2–6 minute YouTube clips for tutorials and in‑depth local features.
• Marketplace, yard sales, seasonal events, and high‑school athletics content generate repeat visits and shares.
• Job and training opportunities circulate via Facebook Groups/Pages and LinkedIn (manufacturing, logistics, healthcare); younger applicants also encounter them on TikTok and Instagram.
• Trust is community‑based: content from local institutions (schools, churches, municipal pages, chambers, first responders) gets higher engagement and share‑through than non‑local brands.

Methodology note

• Figures are derived from U.S. Census population structure for Huntington County and recent Pew Research Center social media adoption rates by platform, age, and gender, applied to the county’s likely age/gender mix. Percentages represent best‑fit local estimates suitable for planning and benchmarking.