Miami County

Miami County, Indiana — key demographics (most recent Census/ACS)

Population size

• Total population (2020 Census): 36,903

Age

• Median age (ACS 2018–2022): ~40.6 years
• Age distribution (ACS 2018–2022, % of total): Under 18: ~23%; 18–64: ~61%; 65+: ~16%

Gender

• Male: ~55%
• Female: ~45% (Note: Skewed male share reflects the county’s correctional facility population)

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2018–2022)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~85%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~9%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~5%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~3%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~0.5%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: ~0.1%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~14,200
• Average household size: ~2.43
• Family households: ~66% of households
• Married-couple households: ~49% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~29%
• Homeownership rate: ~75% owner-occupied; ~25% renter-occupied

Insights

• The county is predominantly White and older than the national median age.
• A large correctional population materially raises the male share, while household measures (which exclude group quarters) reflect more typical family structures for rural Indiana.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates.

• Scope: Miami County, Indiana (population ≈36,000; 2020 Census), low‑to‑moderate rural density ≈95 people per sq. mile centered on Peru.
• Estimated email users: ≈27,000 residents (derived from adult and teen adoption rates applied to county population).
• Age distribution of email users (modeled from U.S./Indiana adoption by age applied to local age mix):
  • 18–34: ≈30%
  • 35–64: ≈50%
  • 65+: ≈20%
• Gender split among email users: ≈50% female, ≈50% male; usage gap is negligible (≤2 percentage points).
• Digital access and usage trends:
  • Most households maintain a home internet subscription; fixed‑broadband subscription is typically in the low‑80s percent for comparable rural Indiana counties, with ≈10–15% smartphone‑only access.
  • Daily email use is the norm among adult users; work, school, and service logins drive high frequency.
  • Connectivity is densest in and around Peru and along major corridors (e.g., US‑31/US‑24), with growing fiber availability; outlying townships rely more on cable, DSL, and fixed wireless.
• Insight: Given near‑universal adult email adoption and moderate rural density, email remains the baseline channel for notifications and account access, with mobile‑first use rising where fixed broadband is weaker.

Mobile phone usage in Miami County, Indiana – 2024 snapshot

Overview and user estimates

• Population baseline: approximately 36,000 residents and about 13,800 households (2023 ACS/Census scale).
• Adult smartphone users: about 23,500–24,500 (roughly 84–88% of adults, applying current Pew/ACS adoption rates adjusted slightly downward for a rural, older county profile).
• Teen smartphone users (ages 13–17): roughly 1,900–2,100 (≈90–95% adoption).
• Total smartphone users (all ages): approximately 25,500–26,500.
• Active mobile lines: about 47,000–50,000 total SIMs/connections in the county, assuming 1.3–1.4 mobile lines per resident (U.S. average is ~1.5; rural counties trend slightly lower).
• Mobile-only internet households: approximately 2,200–2,600 households (16–19% of households rely on a cellular data plan as their primary/only internet). This is several points higher than the Indiana statewide share (~12–14%).

Demographic breakdown of usage

• Age
  • 18–49: near-universal smartphone adoption (≈95–98%); heavy app and social/video use.
  • 50–64: high adoption (≈88–92%); strong use of messaging, navigation, and commerce.
  • 65+: materially lower adoption than the state average, estimated 68–75% (Indiana seniors typically trend closer to mid–70s to low–80s). This is the cohort most likely to use voice/SMS-first and basic Android devices.
• Income and plan type
  • Median household income is below the Indiana median, which correlates with higher prepaid uptake and price-sensitive plans. Estimated prepaid share: 30–35% of active lines (statewide closer to mid–20s to low–30s).
  • Device mix skews slightly older; a higher proportion of LTE-only or budget 5G devices than the Indiana average.
• Race/ethnicity and access
  • The county’s population is majority White non-Hispanic, with smaller Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Native populations. As in similar rural Indiana counties, Hispanic/Latino households show above-average smartphone-only internet reliance, driven by work mobility and price sensitivity.
• Work and education
  • A larger share of service, logistics, manufacturing, and agriculture jobs means more on-the-go usage, hotspotting, and shift-based messaging.
  • Student households show elevated dependence on mobile data for homework compared to the state average due to patchy fixed broadband in some census blocks.

Digital infrastructure points

• Coverage and radio access
  • 4G LTE: near-ubiquitous outdoor coverage from at least one national carrier across US-31, US-24, and Peru; indoor coverage varies in outlying farmland and along river valleys.
  • 5G: broad low-band 5G is present; mid-band 5G (capacity layers such as C-band/n41) is concentrated in and around Peru and along US-31 and other primary corridors, tapering in remote areas.
• Fixed wireless access (FWA)
  • 5G FWA from national carriers is available to many addresses, especially in and near Peru and along major roads. Take-up is above the state rate in pockets lacking cable/fiber, substituting for DSL or satellite.
• Backhaul and fiber
  • Fiber and microwave backhaul follow highway and utility rights-of-way; macro sites cluster near Peru, business parks, and along US-31/US-24 interchanges. Outside these corridors, limited backhaul options constrain dense small-cell builds.
• Public anchor connectivity
  • Schools, healthcare facilities, libraries, and public safety sites serve as anchor connectivity nodes. Public safety broadband (FirstNet and Band 14) coverage aligns with primary transport corridors and municipal centers.

How Miami County differs from Indiana statewide

• Higher reliance on mobile-only internet
  • Miami County: about 16–19% of households are cellular-only for home internet, versus ~12–14% statewide. This reflects fixed-broadband gaps and cost considerations.
• Slightly lower overall smartphone adoption
  • County adult adoption is estimated 1–3 percentage points lower than statewide, largely due to an older age structure and income mix.
• More prepaid and budget device use
  • Prepaid share runs several points higher than the Indiana average, with a larger installed base of LTE-only or entry-level 5G phones.
• Usage patterns
  • Greater reliance on voice/SMS and hotspotting, with somewhat lower average per-line data consumption than Indiana’s urban counties that have denser mid-band 5G and more unlimited premium plans.
• Network build priorities
  • Carriers emphasize coverage and corridor capacity (Peru, US-31/US-24) over dense small-cell builds. Mid-band 5G capacity layers are present but less uniformly than in Indiana’s metro counties, reinforcing the corridor-centric capacity pattern.

Key insights and implications

• Mobile is the default on-ramp to the internet for a meaningful share of Miami County households, particularly in lower-income, renter, and Hispanic/Latino segments.
• Expanding mid-band 5G and FWA further from core corridors would directly reduce mobile congestion and improve home internet options in outlying areas.
• Senior-focused digital literacy and affordable 5G device upgrade programs would close the adoption gap more effectively here than in the state overall.
• For service providers, plans that bundle home FWA with mobile lines, plus robust rural coverage guarantees, are likely to overperform relative to standard urban-centric offers.

Notes on methodology

• Counts are derived by applying current national/state adoption benchmarks (Pew Research, CTIA, ACS S2801) to Miami County’s rural/age profile and household base, with conservative rural adjustments. Ranges reflect known rural-versus-state variances rather than speculative precision.

Miami County, IN social media usage (2024 snapshot)

Population and user stats

• Residents: ≈36,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020–2023 estimates)
• Adults (18+): ≈28,000
• Estimated social media users (13+): ≈24,000–26,000
• Estimated adult social media users: ≈22,000–23,000 (applying Pew’s 80–83% adult penetration)

Audience makeup (share of social media users, est.)

• By age: 13–17 ≈8–9%; 18–29 ≈19–21%; 30–49 ≈35–37%; 50–64 ≈20–22%; 65+ ≈15–17%
• By gender: ≈51% female, ≈49% male overall; women over-index on Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube/Reddit/X

Most-used platforms (adults; expected local share using Pew 2024 national adoption)

• YouTube: ~83% of adults
• Facebook: ~68%
• Instagram: ~47%
• Pinterest: ~35% (majority female)
• TikTok: ~33% (heavy under 35)
• Snapchat: ~30% (primarily under 30)
• X (Twitter): ~27%
• LinkedIn: ~20–25% locally (below national average given occupation mix); Reddit: ~12–15% locally

Age-specific patterns (Pew 2024 benchmarks reflected locally)

• 18–29: Instagram ~75–80%, Snapchat ~65–70%, TikTok ~60%+, YouTube ~90%+
• 30–49: Facebook ~75%+, Instagram ~50%, YouTube ~90%+
• 50–64: Facebook ~70%+, YouTube ~80%+
• 65+: Facebook ~60%+, YouTube ~45–50%

Behavioral trends in Miami County

• Facebook is the community hub: school sports, church and civic groups, county fair and events, lost-and-found pets, and Marketplace dominate engagement; buy/sell/trade groups are highly active.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube for how‑to, home/auto repair, local government/meetings when available; short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) drives discovery for local eateries, boutiques, and services.
• Messaging patterns: Snapchat is the default for teens/young adults; Facebook Messenger is common for 30+; WhatsApp use is limited outside specific family/ethnic networks.
• Posting behavior: A minority create content weekly; most users browse, react, and share. 35–64 are the largest, most reliable engagers on local news, weather, sports, and public-safety posts.
• Time-of-day spikes: Evenings (7–10 p.m.) and weekend mornings; school-year peaks align with sports schedules and weather disruptions.
• Platform skews: Pinterest usage is strong among women for crafts, recipes, and home projects; X is used more for Indiana sports, weather, and state news than for local conversations; LinkedIn is modest, concentrated among healthcare, education, government, and advanced manufacturing roles.

Notes on methodology and sources

• Population and age/gender composition: U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2020–2023).
• Social media adoption rates: Pew Research Center, “Social Media Use in 2024.”
• County-level figures are derived by applying Pew’s adoption rates to Miami County’s population structure; platform mixes and behaviors reflect rural/small-metro Midwest patterns observed by Pew and industry reporting.