Newton County

Key demographics: Newton County, Indiana

Population size

• Total population: 13,830 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~42.8 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: 22.6%
• 18 to 64: 59.5%
• 65 and older: 17.9%

Gender

• Male: 50.5%
• Female: 49.5%

Racial/ethnic composition

• White alone: 92.0%
• Black or African American alone: 0.6%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 0.4%
• Asian alone: 0.3%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: ~0.0%
• Two or more races: 4.0%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 7.8%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: 86.0% (ACS 2018–2022; note that “White alone” includes Hispanics, while “White alone, not Hispanic” excludes them)

Households

• Number of households: 5,516
• Persons per household (avg): 2.55
• Family households: ~66% of households
• Married-couple families: ~54% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~28%
• One-person households: ~27%
• Owner-occupied housing unit rate: ~83% (ACS 2018–2022)

Insights

• Small, largely rural county with high homeownership and predominantly White population.
• Aging profile (median age ~43) with roughly 1 in 6 residents 65+, and just under a quarter under 18.
• Hispanic/Latino community accounts for about 8% and has been a key source of diversity.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (population count) and American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates (age, sex, race/ethnicity, households).

Newton County, IN (pop. ≈13,800; ≈34 residents per sq. mile) is a sparsely populated, rural county. About 5,500 households reside here; roughly 80% have a broadband subscription and 89% have a computer at home. Applying typical U.S. email adoption among internet users (92%) to local connectivity yields an estimated 10,200 email users (≈74% of residents).

Age distribution of email users (estimated share of users):

• 18–34: ~21%
• 35–54: ~36%
• 55–64: ~18%
• 65+: ~25% Adoption is near-universal among working-age adults and strong, but slightly lower, among seniors.

Gender split: approximately even (≈50% female, 50% male), mirroring the county’s overall sex ratio.

Digital access trends:

• Household broadband has risen into the ~80% range, with continued migration from DSL/satellite to cable/fiber where available.
• Mobile connectivity is widespread; 4G/5G coverage is strongest along major corridors (e.g., I‑65/US‑41) and in towns (Kentland, Morocco, Goodland, Roselawn), with weaker speeds in dispersed farm areas.
• Public/library Wi‑Fi and school networks remain important access points for students and lower‑income households.

Bottom line: around three in four residents actively use email, concentrated among working‑age adults, supported by improving but uneven rural broadband and robust mobile coverage.

Mobile phone usage in Newton County, Indiana (2024 snapshot)

Context

• Population: roughly 13,900 residents across ~402 square miles (low density, ~35 residents per sq. mile). Profile skews older and more rural than Indiana overall.

User estimates

• Residents using any mobile phone (all ages): ≈11,500 (about 82% of residents), reflecting near-universal adult ownership but limited uptake among children.
• Adult mobile users (18+): ≈10,400 (≈96% of adults).
• Adult smartphone users: ≈9,300–9,500 (≈86–88% of adults).
• Adult basic-phone-only users: ≈900–1,000 (≈8–9% of adults), notably higher share than Indiana overall.

Demographic breakdown (adults, modeled from ACS age mix and current Pew adoption rates)

• Ages 18–34: ≈2,600–2,700 smartphone users (≈95% adoption in this cohort).
• Ages 35–54: ≈3,050–3,150 smartphone users (≈92%).
• Ages 55–64: ≈1,500–1,550 smartphone users (≈85%).
• Ages 65+: ≈2,000–2,100 smartphone users (≈70%).
• By income and education: smartphone adoption is high across groups, but reliance on prepaid plans and basic devices rises in lower-income and older households; mobile-only internet dependence is concentrated among renters and households without a bachelor’s degree.
• Household structure: estimated 5,300–5,400 households; about 1,000–1,200 households rely primarily on cellular/mobile data for home internet (mobile-only), a materially higher share than the state.

Digital infrastructure points

• Coverage pattern: 4G LTE is the baseline across the county; low‑band 5G is present primarily along main travel corridors (US‑41, US‑24, and around population centers such as Kentland, Morocco, Goodland, Brook, and Roselawn). Large interior areas remain LTE‑only. Mid‑band 5G capacity sites are sparse.
• Site spacing and indoor service: rural macro‑tower spacing commonly 3–6 miles; co‑location is typical; small‑cell deployments are rare. Indoor signal challenges are common in metal‑roof structures and low‑lying areas, leading to above‑average use of boosters or external antennas for voice/data reliability.
• Performance consistency: town centers and highway corridors see the most consistent throughput; fringe areas experience greater variability and more frequent fallback to LTE, particularly during peak evening hours or severe weather.
• Redundancy: fewer overlapping sectors than urban Indiana means outages or maintenance windows are more noticeable to end users; power reliability and backhaul constraints can affect rural sectors during storms.
• Public Wi‑Fi and alternative access: limited outside libraries, schools, and a few businesses; fixed broadband gaps push a measurable share of households to hotspotting.

How Newton County differs from Indiana overall

• Slightly lower smartphone penetration: adult smartphone adoption trails the statewide average by roughly 3–5 percentage points (≈86–88% vs ≈90–92% statewide), driven by an older age profile and more rural settlement.
• Higher basic‑phone retention: basic‑phone‑only adults make up roughly 8–9% locally, materially higher than the state’s single‑digit low (≈4–6%).
• Greater mobile‑only internet reliance: approximately 19–22% of households rely primarily on cellular/mobile data for home internet, versus roughly 12–15% statewide, reflecting patchier fixed broadband and fiber availability.
• Slower 5G capacity rollout: low‑band 5G is available where most residents travel, but mid‑band/capacity 5G coverage lags urban/suburban Indiana, so more traffic remains on LTE and peak‑time slowdowns are more pronounced.
• Device turnover and plan mix: longer device replacement cycles and a higher share of prepaid/value plans than the state average, consistent with rural income and age mix.
• Use profiles: above‑average hotspot use for homework and small‑business/ag operations; lower share of heavy mobile streaming among older residents but higher seasonal spikes during planting/harvest and local events.

Key takeaways

• Market size: about 10.4k adult mobile users and 9.3–9.5k adult smartphone users, with total mobile users around 11.5k when including teens.
• Coverage is broadly sufficient for voice/SMS and general LTE data, with 5G mainly in low‑band along corridors; capacity and indoor coverage remain the main constraints.
• Compared to Indiana overall, Newton County shows lower smartphone penetration, more basic‑phone retention, and a significantly higher dependence on mobile networks for primary home connectivity—differences rooted in its rural geography, older demographics, and uneven fixed broadband.

Sources and methodology: Estimates derived from U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019–2023 (population and age structure), Pew Research Center 2023–2024 (smartphone adoption by age and rurality), and FCC Broadband Data Collection 2023–2024 (coverage and technology mix). Figures are rounded to reflect modeling uncertainty while maintaining decision‑useful precision.

Newton County, IN social media snapshot (2025)

Scope and baseline

• Population: 13,830 (2020 Census). Adults (18+): ≈10,800.
• Figures below are county-level estimates derived from U.S. Census population and Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. platform adoption, adjusted for rural Midwest patterns. Users may be on multiple platforms, so counts overlap.

Most-used platforms (adults, estimated share using each platform)

• YouTube: 80% (≈8,640 adults)
• Facebook: 70% (≈7,560)
• Instagram: 40% (≈4,320)
• TikTok: 30% (≈3,240)
• Pinterest: 30% (≈3,240)
• Snapchat: 24% (≈2,590)
• LinkedIn: 20% (≈2,160)
• X (Twitter): 18% (≈1,940)
• Reddit: 18% (≈1,940)

Age profile of local social media users (share of the social audience)

• 18–29: ≈19%
• 30–49: ≈34%
• 50–64: ≈30%
• 65+: ≈17% Interpretation: Despite an older-than-average county profile, usage remains broad; the 30–64 segment forms the majority of the active audience.

Gender breakdown (overall and platform skews)

• Overall users: ≈52% women, 48% men.
• Platform skews:
  • More women than men on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Pinterest.
  • More men than women on YouTube, Reddit, X.
  • Snapchat is near-even but slightly female-leaning. These skews follow consistent national patterns observed by Pew and typically hold in rural Indiana.

Behavioral trends observed in small Indiana counties and expected locally

• Facebook as the community hub: heavy use of Groups (schools, youth sports, civic, churches), local government updates, and Facebook Marketplace for person-to-person sales.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube for how-to, repairs, farming and equipment content; short-form video via Reels/TikTok drives discovery among 18–34.
• Local commerce and services: service providers (home, auto, health, beauty) rely on Facebook/Instagram for referrals and reviews; boosted posts outperform organic for timely offers.
• Event-driven spikes: county fairs, school athletics, festivals, and weather events generate concentrated engagement in local groups and pages.
• Messaging over public posting: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat are common for coordination; many residents see posts but comment less publicly (high “lurker” share).
• Trust in local voices: content from known people, organizations, and area businesses performs better than national pages; UGC and testimonials are strong drivers.
• Cross-posting and repurposing: Instagram content mirrors to Facebook; short vertical video reused across Reels/TikTok/YouTube Shorts.
• LinkedIn niche utility: effective for hiring in healthcare, education, and skilled trades, but overall reach is modest compared with Facebook and YouTube.

Notes on methodology

• Adult population from U.S. Census 2020; platform adoption rates from Pew Research Center’s 2024 Social Media Use data. County estimates apply rural adjustments typical of small Indiana counties; figures are rounded to be decision-ready.