Rush County

Rush County, Indiana — key demographics (latest available Census/ACS)

Population size and trend

• Total population: 16,752 (2020 Census); 2023 estimate ~16,5–16,6K (slight decline since 2010)
• Change since 2010: about -3% to -4% (from roughly 17.4K in 2010)

Age

• Median age: ~42 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~24%
• 65 and over: ~19%

Sex

• Female: ~50.5%
• Male: ~49.5%

Race and ethnicity (2020 Census; Hispanic is an ethnicity overlapping race)

• White alone: ~95%
• Black or African American alone: ~0.5%–0.6%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.2%–0.3%
• Asian alone: ~0.2%
• Two or more races: ~3%–4%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2%
• White alone, not Hispanic: ~93%–95%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~6,600–6,700
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~67% of households
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~77%–78%
• Median household income (2022 dollars): around $60K–$62K
• Poverty rate: ~11%

Insights

• Small, slowly declining, and aging population
• Predominantly White with limited racial/ethnic diversity
• High homeownership and modest household size
• Household incomes modest and poverty slightly above the U.S. average

• Population and density: Rush County, IN has about 16,600 residents and roughly 41 people per square mile.
• Estimated email users: about 12,500 residents (around 75% of the population) use email.
• Age distribution of email use (share within each age group who use email): 18–29: 95%; 30–49: 96%; 50–64: 91%; 65+: 78%. Given the county’s older-than-average age mix, about 45% of local email users are 50+.
• Gender split: near parity, about 51% female and 49% male among email users, tracking the population balance.
• Digital access trends:
  • Roughly 80% of households have a broadband subscription (about 5,300 of 6,600 households).
  • About 13% are smartphone‑only internet users.
  • Fixed broadband is strongest in and around Rushville; outer townships depend more on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite.
  • Countywide 4G LTE with expanding 5G along major corridors supports mobile email use.
• Local density/connectivity facts: Low density and dispersed addresses raise last‑mile costs and slow fiber buildouts; fiber availability is expanding but not yet universal. Net effect: email is effectively ubiquitous for work, school, and services, but bandwidth gaps in low‑density areas can constrain large attachments and rich media.

Rush County, IN: mobile phone usage snapshot (with county-specific estimates) and how it differs from the Indiana baseline

Overall pattern versus Indiana

• More rural and older than the state average, which translates into slightly lower smartphone adoption, a higher share of “smartphone-only” internet households, and more variable 5G coverage density.
• Heavier reliance on LTE and fixed wireless in outlying townships than the state overall, with 5G concentrated in/near Rushville and along primary corridors (US‑52, IN‑3, IN‑44).
• Affordability plays a bigger role in access than in the state overall, reflected in a higher rate of cellular-only home internet use.

User estimates (2025, derived from Census age mix and Pew adoption rates)

• Population base: 16,752 (2020 Census).
• Adult population (18+): approximately 12,700.
• Adults using any mobile/cell phone: 12,100–12,400 (95–98% of adults).
• Adult smartphone users: 10,800–11,400 (roughly 85–90% of adults; lower than the Indiana average by 2–4 percentage points).
• Teen smartphone users (ages 13–17): about 1,000–1,100 with regular smartphone access (≈90–95% adoption typical for teens applied to local cohort).
• Household smartphone access: ≈88–92% of households have at least one smartphone present.
• Smartphone-only internet households (cellular data plan but no wired broadband): estimated 20–25% of households, above the Indiana average (≈15–18%). This is a key difference from state-level patterns.

Demographic context and how it shapes usage

• Age structure: Rush County skews older than the state; seniors (65+) form a larger share of the population than the Indiana average. Given lower smartphone adoption among seniors (≈75–80%), this pulls down the county’s overall smartphone penetration relative to the state.
• Race/ethnicity: Predominantly non-Hispanic White, with smaller shares of minority populations than state averages. Device adoption gaps by race are not the primary driver locally; rurality and age are more influential.
• Income and affordability: Median household income is lower than the Indiana median. That correlates with a higher likelihood of smartphone-only internet access, heavier use of prepaid plans, and lower multi-line family plan saturation than in urban/suburban Indiana.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Cellular coverage
  • LTE: All three national carriers offer broad LTE coverage. Performance is strongest in Rushville and along major highways; indoor coverage and capacity decline across dispersed agricultural areas and in low-density townships.
  • 5G: Mid-band/sub‑6 GHz 5G is present in and around Rushville and along primary corridors; outside those areas, service often falls back to LTE. 5G coverage density is notably thinner than Indiana’s metro counties.
  • Capacity and reliability: Peak-time slowdowns are more common on sector edges and in fringe areas. Farm outbuildings and metal structures see frequent indoor signal challenges compared with urban Indiana.
• Wireline and fixed wireless
  • Rushville has legacy cable and some fiber footprints; the rest of the county relies on a mix of DSL (declining), fixed wireless ISPs, and emerging co‑op or regional telco fiber builds. Fiber availability is growing but remains patchy outside town.
  • This access pattern explains the above-average share of cellular-only home internet and reinforces heavy smartphone reliance for everyday connectivity compared with the statewide norm.
• Emergency and public-safety relevance
  • E911 location and text-to-911 are supported; however, handset-based calling reliability in dead zones can lag the state average. Residents often use Wi‑Fi calling at home to compensate for indoor signal gaps.

What’s meaningfully different from Indiana overall

• Slightly lower adult smartphone penetration due to older age mix and rural settlement pattern.
• Higher smartphone-only household rate because of uneven wireline broadband availability and affordability constraints.
• Thinner and more corridor-centric 5G coverage, with more routine fallback to LTE and greater dependence on fixed wireless than in urban and suburban counties.
• Usage behavior tilts toward practical, connectivity-first patterns (Wi‑Fi calling, hotspotting, and cellular data as primary home internet) rather than device- or app-centric patterns common in metro Indiana.

Sources and methods

• Population and age base: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (Rush County total population).
• Adoption rates applied to local age mix: Pew Research Center, 2023–2024 U.S. smartphone and cellphone adoption benchmarks by age group; teen access rates from national surveys of 13–17-year-olds.
• Household connectivity tendencies (smartphone-only): Derived from the American Community Survey S2801 (Types of Computers and Internet Subscriptions) patterns for rural Indiana counties, adjusted to Rush County’s rural profile and income distribution.
• Network characteristics: Synthesis of carrier-reported coverage footprints, FCC mobile/broadband mapping patterns for rural Indiana, and typical performance differentials between small-town cores and agricultural areas.

Rush County, IN social media snapshot (2025)

Population baseline

• Total population: ≈16.5k (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 estimate)
• Adults (18+): ≈12.6k
• Gender: ≈51% female, 49% male
• Age mix: ≈24% under 18, ≈55% 18–64, ≈21% 65+

Most‑used platforms among adults (modeled from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. adult usage rates applied to Rush County’s adult base; users overlap across platforms)

• YouTube: ~83% of adults ≈10.5k users
• Facebook: ~68% ≈8.6k
• Instagram: ~47% ≈5.9k
• Pinterest: ~35% ≈4.4k
• TikTok: ~33% ≈4.2k
• Snapchat: ~30% ≈3.8k
• LinkedIn: ~30% ≈3.8k
• X (Twitter): ~22% ≈2.8k
• Reddit: ~22% ≈2.8k
• WhatsApp: ~21% ≈2.6k
• Nextdoor: ~19% ≈2.4k

Age groups (who’s active, by tendency)

• Under 18: Heavy on Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram; minimal Facebook use beyond Messenger.
• 18–34: Multi‑platform power users; short‑video (Reels/TikTok) and Instagram drive daily time spent; Snapchat remains strong.
• 35–64: Facebook and YouTube dominate for news, parenting, school/sports updates, and local commerce; Instagram used for brands and influencers.
• 65+: Facebook is the default community hub; YouTube for “how‑to,” church, and hobby content.

Gender patterns

• Overall user base mirrors the county split (≈51% women, 49% men).
• Platform skews: Pinterest and Facebook Groups skew female; Reddit and X skew male; Instagram and TikTok are near-balanced with slight female tilt; LinkedIn near-even.

Behavioral trends in a rural county context

• Facebook is the community backbone: local government, schools, churches, youth sports, events, and Marketplace see high engagement.
• Video has become the norm: short vertical video (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) drives discovery; how‑to and local highlight reels perform best.
• Word‑of‑mouth at scale: recommendations happen in closed/local Facebook Groups; “ISO” and service referrals are common.
• Local news gap filling: residents rely on Facebook Pages/Groups and YouTube livestreams for announcements, weather, and high‑school sports.
• Shopping behavior: Facebook Marketplace and local boutique live‑sales outperform national e‑commerce ads for impulse buys.
• Platform overlap: Most adults use 2–4 platforms; cross‑posting video to Facebook Reels + Instagram + YouTube Shorts amplifies reach.

Sources and method

• Population, age, and gender: U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts (Rush County, IN), 2023 estimates.
• Platform usage rates: Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (U.S. adults). Rush County figures are modeled by applying Pew’s percentages to the local adult population; users are multi‑platform, so counts overlap.