Jefferson County

Jefferson County, Indiana — key demographics (latest available from U.S. Census Bureau; ACS 2019–2023 5-year unless noted)

Population size

• 2020 Census: 33,147
• 2023 population estimate: ~33,300

Age

• Median age: ~40.6 years
• Under 18: ~21%
• 18–24: ~8%
• 25–44: ~25%
• 45–64: ~26%
• 65 and over: ~20%

Gender

• Female: ~50.5%
• Male: ~49.5%

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: ~91%
• Black or African American alone: ~3%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.3%
• Asian alone: ~0.5%
• Two or more races: ~5%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~3% [overlaps with race categories]

Households and housing

• Total households: ~13,000
• Average household size: ~2.4
• Family households: ~66% of households
• Married-couple households: ~47% of households
• One-person households: ~28% (about 12% age 65+ living alone)
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~71%
• Median household income (inflation-adjusted): roughly $60,000
• Persons in poverty: ~14%

Insights

• Stable, modest population with an older age profile than the U.S. overall.
• Predominantly White, with small but growing multiracial and Hispanic populations.
• High owner-occupancy and a majority of family households, typical of small/mid-size Midwestern counties.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; Population Estimates Program (2023).

Jefferson County, IN snapshot

• Population and density: 33,147 residents (2020 Census) across ~360 sq mi; ~92 people per sq mi. Madison is the primary population and connectivity hub.
• Estimated email users: ~23,600 adult users. Method: ~25,700 adults (≈77.5% of population) × ~92% email adoption among adults.
• Age distribution of email users (approximate counts and adoption rates):
  • 18–29: ~5,000 users (≈95% adoption)
  • 30–49: ~8,500 users (≈96%)
  • 50–64: ~6,000 users (≈93%)
  • 65+: ~4,100 users (≈85%)
• Gender split: Population is roughly balanced (about 50% female, 50% male); email usage is near parity, yielding ~12.0k female and ~11.6k male users.
• Digital access and trends:
  • About 83% of households subscribe to fixed broadband; 90%+ have a computer device.
  • Roughly 10–12% are smartphone-only for home internet.
  • Connectivity is densest in Madison and along major corridors; rural tracts show fewer high-speed choices and more signal variability.
  • Access and speeds have been rising as cable upgrades, fiber extensions, and fixed‑wireless deployments expand, pushing typical wired service into the 100+ Mbps tier where available.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Jefferson County, Indiana (based on ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates, FCC mobile coverage filings through 2023, and statewide benchmarks)

Overall scale and user estimates

• Population and households: ~33,000 residents; ~13,000 households
• Active mobile users: ≈26,000 residents use a mobile phone, including ≈24,000 smartphone users
• Household device penetration: ~88% of households report having a smartphone (Indiana ≈91%); households with any cellular data plan ≈73% (Indiana ≈76%)

How Jefferson County differs from the state

• Higher mobile-only internet reliance: About 14–16% of households rely on a cellular data plan with no wireline broadband (Indiana ≈9–11%)
• Lower wireline broadband subscription rate: ~70–74% of households subscribe to cable/DSL/fiber (Indiana ≈78–82%)
• Slightly lower smartphone penetration: Household smartphone presence trails the state by ~2–4 percentage points
• More residents offline: ~14–17% of households report no home internet subscription (Indiana ≈11–13%)

Demographic context shaping mobile use

• Older age profile: Residents 65+ comprise roughly one-fifth of the county, several points above the Indiana average; this skews overall smartphone adoption slightly lower and raises basic/feature-phone retention among seniors
• Income and education: Median household income is below the state median, correlating with higher prepaid usage and greater mobile-only dependence for home internet
• Rural dispersion: Outside Madison and Hanover, lower population density coincides with less consistent 5G capacity and more LTE-only pockets, reinforcing mobile-only behavior where wireline is limited

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Coverage baseline: Near-universal outdoor 4G LTE coverage across the county; 5G is established in and around Madison and Hanover and along primary corridors (US 421, SR 7, SR 56, SR 62), with LTE persisting in outlying areas and valleys
• 5G characteristics: T-Mobile mid-band (higher-capacity) 5G is most prevalent near Madison/US 421; AT&T and Verizon 5G are present but lean more on low-band outside town centers, with selective mid-band capacity near higher-traffic corridors
• Terrain effects: River bluffs and wooded hills west and northwest of Madison contribute to dead spots and indoor coverage variability, a more pronounced issue than in flatter parts of Indiana
• Wireline backdrop: Madison has the strongest cable/fiber footprint; outside town, wireline options thin out, and several rural areas depend on DSL, fixed wireless, or mobile hotspots
• Fixed wireless/home 5G: T-Mobile Home Internet and Verizon 5G Home are available in and around Madison and along key corridors; AT&T Fixed Wireless and regional fixed-wireless ISPs serve gaps in more rural zones

Usage and behavior signals

• Mobile-first households: The combination of lower wireline availability and lower income raises reliance on smartphones as the primary or sole internet device more than the state average
• Work and travel patterns: Daily travel along US 421 and SR 56 shows stronger 5G availability and higher median speeds than interior rural roads, concentrating high-capacity mobile use around these corridors
• Emergency/services coverage: Public-safety-oriented coverage (e.g., FirstNet on AT&T) aligns closely with LTE reliability rather than widespread mid-band 5G, underscoring the continued importance of LTE for voice/SMS in rural stretches

Bottom-line insights

• Jefferson County’s mobile landscape is more “mobile-dependent” than Indiana overall: slightly fewer smartphones per household, noticeably more mobile-only internet households, and a heavier reliance on LTE outside town centers
• 5G capacity is improving but remains clustered near Madison/primary corridors; rural interiors trail the state’s urbanized counties in mid-band 5G density
• Addressing the gap hinges on expanding mid-band 5G and wireline fiber beyond Madison; absent that, mobile-only dependence—and associated capacity pressure during peak hours—will stay higher than the state average

Jefferson County, IN social media snapshot (modeled 2024–2025)

Baseline and user counts

• Population: ~33,000 residents
• 13+ population: ~28,000; 18+ population: ~25,000
• Active social media users (13+): ~21,000–23,000 (75–80% penetration)
• Daily social users (13+): ~16,000–18,000 (55–65% of 13+)

Age mix of local social users (share of total users)

• 13–17: 8–10%
• 18–29: 18–20%
• 30–44: 26–28%
• 45–64: 28–30%
• 65+: 14–16%

Gender breakdown

• Overall users: ~51% female, ~49% male
• Platform skews:
  • Pinterest: ~75–80% female
  • Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat: modest female skew (~55–60% female)
  • Facebook: near parity, slight female tilt (~53–56% female)
  • YouTube: modest male skew (~55–60% male)
  • Reddit, X (Twitter): male-skewed (~60–70% male)
  • LinkedIn: near parity

Most‑used platforms (share of adults 18+)

• YouTube: ~83%
• Facebook: ~68%
• Instagram: ~47%
• Pinterest: ~35%
• TikTok: ~33%
• Snapchat: ~30%
• X (Twitter): ~22%
• Reddit: ~22%
• LinkedIn: ~28%
• WhatsApp: ~21%

Behavioral trends observed in similar small/midwestern counties and reflected locally

• Community-first Facebook usage: High engagement with local groups, school and church updates, high‑school sports, buy/sell/Marketplace, weather alerts, and event pages (e.g., festivals and fairs). Facebook remains the default “local newsfeed.”
• Video as the research and “how‑to” channel: YouTube drives product research, DIY, hunting/fishing, home repair, and automotive; short‑form clips cross‑posted to Facebook and TikTok see strong completion when under 30–45 seconds.
• Under‑35 discovery on Instagram/TikTok: Younger adults use Reels/TikTok for dining, boutiques, fitness, salons, outdoor recreation, and weekend plans; authenticity and faces-on-camera outperform polished ads.
• Teens lean Snapchat and TikTok: Daily streaks, group chats, and school/team content dominate; Stories and short vertical video outperform static posts for this cohort.
• Messaging matters: Facebook Messenger is the default for business inquiries; WhatsApp has niche use among service and construction crews.
• Best posting windows: Local engagement clusters around early morning (7–9 a.m.), lunch (11:30 a.m.–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–10 p.m.), with weekend mornings strong for community updates and event reminders.
• Trust signals: Posts from recognizable local institutions, first responders, schools, and well‑known community members drive outsized shares and comments; UGC and customer testimonials outperform brand‑only creative.
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace and local buy/sell groups are primary for secondhand goods and even services; Instagram DMs are common for appointment‑based businesses.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are modeled from the county’s ACS population profile combined with recent Pew Research Center platform adoption rates for U.S. adults and widely observed rural/midwestern usage patterns. Percentages reflect adults 18+ unless noted; teen behavior is summarized qualitatively.