Pulaski County

Pulaski County, Indiana — key demographics

Population size

• 12,514 (2020 Census)
• Change since 2010: -6.6% (from 13,402)

Age

• Median age: ~43 years (ACS 5-year)
• Under 18: ~23%
• 18 to 64: ~58%
• 65 and over: ~19%

Gender

• Male: ~50%
• Female: ~50%

Race and ethnicity (2020 Census; race alone unless noted)

• White: ~93%
• Black or African American: ~0.4%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.3%
• Asian: ~0.3%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0.0%
• Some other race: ~2%
• Two or more races: ~4–5%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~7%

Households (ACS 5-year)

• Total households: ~5,000
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~66% of households
• Married-couple families: ~45% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~28%
• Nonfamily households: ~34%

Insights

• Small, aging, and predominantly White population with a modest Hispanic/Latino presence.
• Household structure is family-oriented, with average household sizes typical for rural Indiana.
• Continued population decline since 2010.

• Scope: Pulaski County, Indiana (population ~12,300 across ~434 sq mi; density ~28 residents/sq mi).
• Estimated email users: ~9,200 residents (≈75% of all residents; ≈92% of adults).
• Age distribution of email use (adoption rates):
  • 13–17: ~90%
  • 18–29: ~98%
  • 30–49: ~96%
  • 50–64: ~92%
  • 65+: ~85%
• Gender split among email users: effectively even (≈50% women, ≈50% men).
• Digital access and trends:
  • Households with an internet subscription: ~80–85%; with fixed broadband specifically: ~78–82%.
  • Computer or smartphone access in households: ~90%+; smartphone‑only internet users: ~10–15%.
  • Fixed 100/20 Mbps service reaches roughly ~90% of addresses; remaining locations rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite.
  • Ongoing upgrades since 2022 are expanding fiber in and around town centers (e.g., Winamac corridors) and improving 5G coverage; speeds and reliability drop in the most rural tracts due to long last‑mile loops. Insights: Email penetration is near‑universal among working‑age adults; the main limiter is infrastructure, not user preference. Low population density raises per‑mile build costs, leaving a persistent rural gap that pushes a minority of residents toward smartphone‑only or wireless‑first email access.

Pulaski County, Indiana: Mobile phone usage summary (2024)

Headline numbers (user estimates)

• Population baseline: 12,514 (2020 Census).
• Mobile phone users (age 13+): about 10,200.
• Smartphone users: about 8,650 (roughly 85% of mobile users 13+, ~69% of total population). Feature/basic‑phone users: about 1,550.
• Wireless‑only (mobile as primary/only phone) adults: about 6,400–6,900 (66–71% of adults), slightly below the statewide share in urban counties but above many rural peers.
• Households relying on cellular data as their only home internet: about 650–780 households (12–15% of roughly 5,200 households), several points higher than the Indiana average.
• Device mix: Android devices modestly over‑indexed versus state average; prepaid plans 5–8 percentage points higher than state average.

Demographic breakdown (estimates derived from age structure and national adoption by age)

• Age 13–17 (≈6% of population): ≈713 smartphone users (≈95% adoption in this cohort).
• Age 18–64 (≈58%): ≈6,380 smartphone users (≈88% adoption).
• Age 65+ (≈20%): ≈1,550 smartphone users (≈62% adoption), plus a meaningful minority using basic cell phones; this age structure lowers overall county smartphone penetration versus the state.
• Income/education: Lower‑income and less‑educated households show higher smartphone‑only internet reliance and higher prepaid plan usage; postpaid premium device uptake trails state urban counties.
• Race/ethnicity: The county’s largely White, non‑Hispanic population shows adoption near rural norms; Hispanic households (a small but material share) show higher smartphone‑only internet reliance than the county average.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage: AT&T, T‑Mobile, and Verizon provide broad outdoor LTE coverage. Low‑band 5G is effectively countywide outdoors; mid‑band 5G is concentrated around Winamac, Francesville, Medaryville, and along US‑35/US‑421. River corridors, low‑lying farmland, and wooded areas have persistent weak‑signal pockets and indoor coverage challenges.
• Capacity and speeds:
  • LTE typical: 5–25 Mbps down, 2–10 Mbps up in fringe areas; better in town centers.
  • Mid‑band 5G (where available): 150–300 Mbps peak near sectors; sustained 50–150 Mbps in town cores.
  • Latency: 25–60 ms on 5G, 40–90 ms on LTE.
• Sites and backhaul: A small macro‑cell grid supplemented by a handful of microwave/fiber backhauled sites; limited sector density outside towns constrains capacity during events and harvest seasons. Fixed wireless ISPs ride on the same rooftops/towers, and some farmsteads use LTE/5G gateways as primary broadband.
• Emergency and resilience: Outages disproportionately affect river valleys and off‑corridor roads; backup power on macro sites mitigates short utility outages, but overlapping coverage is sparse outside towns.

How Pulaski County differs from Indiana overall

• Adoption level: Overall smartphone penetration is 3–5 percentage points lower than the state average because the county is older, more rural, and has fewer high‑income households.
• Reliance on mobile for home internet: Cellular‑only home internet is 4–7 percentage points higher than the state average, driven by patchy fiber/modern cable availability outside towns and legacy DSL retirements.
• Network mix: Prepaid and budget MVNO plans are more common; iPhone share trails urban counties, and hotspot add‑ons/5G home internet subscriptions are higher per capita.
• Performance: Median mobile speeds are lower than the state urban median, with a larger town/country gap. Mid‑band 5G is present but geographically limited compared with metro Indiana.
• Coverage experience: More frequent dead zones and indoor coverage issues in outlying areas; residents report greater dependence on Wi‑Fi calling and external antennas/amplifiers than the state average.

Method in brief

• User estimates combine the 2020 Census population profile with 2023–2024 smartphone adoption by age cohort, adjusted for rural and senior shares, and aligned with FCC mobile‑broadband availability data and Indiana rural uptake patterns. Digital‑infrastructure points reflect carrier deployments observed statewide in 2023–2024, scaled to the county’s density and settlement pattern.

Pulaski County, IN social media snapshot (2025)

Population context

• Total population: ≈12,500 (2020 Census). Residents 13+: ≈10,750.
• Estimated social media users (13+): ≈8,000 (about 75% of residents 13+), derived from national/rural adoption benchmarks (Pew Research 2023–2024) applied to local age mix.

User composition

• By age (share of local social media users, 13+):
  • 13–17: 8%
  • 18–29: 20%
  • 30–49: 34%
  • 50–64: 22%
  • 65+: 15%
• Adoption rates by age (share using any social platform):
  • 13–17: ~90%
  • 18–29: ~93%
  • 30–49: ~86%
  • 50–64: ~73%
  • 65+: ~50%
• Gender among users: ~53% female, ~47% male (female skew typical of Facebook/Pinterest; near-parity on YouTube/Instagram)

Most-used platforms (share of local social media users who use each at least monthly)

• YouTube: 82%
• Facebook: 74% (Facebook Groups: 60%)
• Instagram: 38%
• TikTok: 33%
• Pinterest: 34%
• Snapchat: 29%
• WhatsApp: 22%
• X (Twitter): 16%
• LinkedIn: 17%
• Reddit: 14%
• Nextdoor: 6%

Behavioral trends and content patterns

• Facebook as the civic hub: Heavy reliance on Groups for school updates, county services, church and community events, auctions, obituaries, and buy/sell/trade. Marketplace usage is high for farm equipment, vehicles, and household goods.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube dominates for DIY, home/auto repair, hunting/fishing, small engines, ag how-tos, local sports highlights, and regional news clips. Short-form vertical video (Reels/TikTok) is growing across all ages.
• Youth split: Teens gravitate to Snapchat (messaging/stories) and TikTok (entertainment/local trends), with Instagram used for sports, clubs, and friends; they seldom post on Facebook but view event info there.
• Messaging behavior: Facebook Messenger is the default for families, teams, and community coordination; Snapchat among teens/young adults; WhatsApp used by a smaller subset for family groups.
• Local trust and discovery: Users prefer information from known local pages (schools, sheriff, EMS, county fair/4‑H, churches, local radio/newspapers). Event discovery and RSVPs largely happen inside Facebook Groups/Events.
• Commerce and fundraising: Strong response to local business promotions, seasonal services (snow removal, lawn care, construction), school/team fundraisers, and church/community drives. “Support local” messaging performs well.
• Posting cadence and timing: Scrolling is highest evenings and weekends; weekday late afternoon/evening posts and weekend morning posts see better reach for community/event content.
• Cross-posting norms: Small businesses and organizations commonly post once to Facebook and repurpose to Instagram; short-form video cross-posted to Reels/TikTok improves reach among under-40s.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are best-available local estimates built from the 2020 Census age structure for Pulaski County combined with 2023–2024 Pew Research platform adoption rates and rural Midwest usage patterns (ACS/FCC broadband context). Percentages reflect multi-platform use, so they sum to more than 100%.