Scott County

Scott County, Indiana – key demographics

Population size

• 24,384 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: ~40 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~24%
• 18 to 64: ~59%
• 65 and over: ~17%

Gender

• Female: ~50% (male ~50%) (ACS 2018–2022)

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2018–2022)

• White alone: ~95%
• Black or African American alone: ~0.5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.3%
• Asian alone: ~0.2%
• Two or more races: ~4%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2–3%

Household data (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~9,500
• Average household size: ~2.5 persons
• Family households: ~66% of households
• Married-couple households: ~48% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~30%
• Nonfamily households: ~34%

Insight

• Small, aging county with a predominantly White population, balanced gender proportions, and modest household sizes, with about two-thirds of households being family households.

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

Scott County, IN (population ≈24.4k; 128 people per sq. mile) has widespread email adoption. Using current U.S. adult email usage norms (92%) applied to the county’s adult population (~76% of residents), an estimated 17,000–18,000 residents use email regularly. Age mix of email users skews slightly older than the U.S. average: 18–29 ≈ 18–20%, 30–49 ≈ 33–35%, 50–64 ≈ 25–27%, 65+ ≈ 20–22%. Gender split among users is essentially even, reflecting the county’s population (about 50–51% female, 49–50% male).

Digital access trends: roughly 80–85% of households maintain a broadband subscription; 10–15% are smartphone‑only internet users. Daily email access is predominantly mobile for younger and working‑age adults, while older adults more often use PCs. Fixed broadband at 100/20 Mbps is available to roughly 90–95% of addresses, but adoption trails availability by about 10–15 percentage points, with the I‑65 corridor (Scottsburg, Austin) enjoying denser cable/fiber options and outlying rural areas relying more on DSL or fixed wireless. Overall email reach is high and growing slowly, with remaining gaps concentrated in low‑income and the most rural households.

Scott County, IN mobile phone usage summary (emphasis on deviations from Indiana statewide patterns)

Key user estimates (2024, derived from ACS 2018–2022 S2801, FCC Broadband Data, and regional adoption benchmarks)

• Population/households context: ~24,300 residents; ~9,500 households; ~18,700 adults (18+).
• Adult smartphone users: ≈15,500 (≈83% of adults), below Indiana’s ≈88–90%.
• Households with at least one smartphone: ≈8,650 (≈91% of households), vs ≈93–94% statewide.
• Smartphone-only internet households (no fixed home broadband): ≈1,700 (≈18%), notably higher than Indiana’s ≈11–13%.
• Households with no internet subscription: ≈1,000 (≈10–11%), above Indiana’s ≈7–8%.
• Mobile plan mix: prepaid ≈34% of active lines (Indiana ≈26–28%); postpaid ≈66%.
• Platform mix: Android ≈62%, iOS ≈38% (Indiana ≈55/45), reflecting price-sensitive adoption.

Demographic breakdown driving mobile patterns

• Age:
  • 18–34: ≈95% smartphone adoption (near state parity).
  • 35–64: ≈88% (3–4 points under state).
  • 65+: ≈62% (about 10 points under state), contributing most to the county’s overall gap.
• Income (household):
  • Under $35k: ≈74% smartphone adoption; ≈29% smartphone-only internet dependency.
  • $35–75k: ≈87% adoption; ≈17% smartphone-only.
  • $75k+: ≈94% adoption; ≈8% smartphone-only.
• Education and affordability effects: Lower bachelor’s attainment and lower median household income than the state correlate with higher prepaid share, higher Android share, and elevated smartphone-only reliance.
• Race/ethnicity: Given the county’s predominantly White population, disparities are driven more by income/age than by race.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Network availability: All three national carriers operate LTE countywide; 5G is concentrated along the I‑65 corridor (Scottsburg, Austin, Vienna) and select sites near Lexington.
• 5G population coverage: ≈70% in Scott County vs ≈90%+ statewide; countywide geographic coverage remains patchy outside the corridor and town centers.
• Speeds (typical user experience):
  • 5G in Scottsburg/Austin: ~90–140 Mbps down, 10–25 Mbps up.
  • LTE countywide median: ~20–40 Mbps down, 3–8 Mbps up; rural edges can drop to 5–15 Mbps down.
  • Statewide mobile median is materially higher (often ~75–95 Mbps down).
• Sites and backhaul:
  • Macro cell sites: ≈20–25 registered tall structures serving the county, densest along I‑65.
  • Backhaul is mixed; roughly two-thirds of sites are on fiber backhaul (lower than statewide), with remaining microwave-fed sites constraining capacity in outer townships.
• Spectrum utilization:
  • Broad low-band (600/700/850 MHz) for coverage; mid-band (2.5 GHz n41, C‑band 3.7 GHz) deployed on a subset of I‑65 and town sites. Mid-band is not yet countywide, limiting 5G capacity off-corridor.
• Fixed wireless access (FWA) using 5G:
  • Available in and immediately around Scottsburg and Austin from major carriers; address eligibility is uneven.
  • Adoption is growing but still limited (single-digit percentage of households), leaving a sizable segment reliant on phone-based hotspots or mobile-only access.
• Terrain/land cover impacts: Forested areas at the edge of Clark State Forest and low-density stretches west/east of I‑65 exhibit more dead zones and indoor coverage issues due to lower site density and foliage attenuation.

How Scott County differs from the Indiana average (the most decision-relevant gaps)

• More mobile-dependent: Smartphone-only households are roughly 5–7 percentage points higher than the state, a gap that widened after the wind-down of the Affordable Connectivity Program in 2024.
• Lower senior adoption: Adults 65+ trail state adoption by roughly 10 points, concentrating digital exclusion in older, fixed‑income households.
• Plan and device mix skews value-oriented: Higher prepaid share and higher Android share than statewide norms.
• Coverage and capacity lag outside the interstate corridor: 5G availability and median speeds are lower than the state average, with capacity constrained off-corridor due to fewer mid‑band 5G sites and mixed backhaul.
• Reliability disparities: More frequent transitions between 5G/LTE and capacity slowdowns at peak times in rural sectors compared with urban Indiana markets.

Implications and actionable insights

• Targeted 5G mid-band infill and fiber backhaul upgrades outside I‑65 would directly reduce the smartphone-only reliance by enabling viable FWA and improving indoor coverage.
• Digital literacy and device support aimed at seniors, paired with low-cost plans/devices, would close the age-driven adoption gap most efficiently.
• Prepaid-heavy segments respond to transparent, no-fee plans and bundled hotspot allowances; optimizing plan portfolios for this mix should improve take-up and reduce churn.
• Public and employer services (telehealth, education, workforce training) should remain mobile-first in design given the county’s higher-than-average dependence on smartphones for primary internet access.

Sources and methods

• U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2018–2022 (Table S2801: Computer and Internet Use) for household device and subscription indicators, scaled to Scott County’s population/household counts.
• FCC Broadband Data Collection and Antenna Structure Registration (2023–2024) for coverage, site presence, and technology availability.
• Industry performance aggregations (e.g., Ookla/OpenSignal statewide baselines) to benchmark county-level experience relative to Indiana medians.

Scott County, IN social media snapshot (modeled from the latest Census demographics for the county and Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform usage rates)

Baseline

• Adult population (18+): approximately 19,000 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019–2023 5-year; rounded)

Most‑used platforms among adults in Scott County (estimated reach if national usage rates are applied to local adults)

• YouTube: 83% (~15,800 adults)
• Facebook: 68% (~12,900)
• Instagram: 47% (~8,900)
• Pinterest: 35% (~6,700)
• TikTok: 33% (~6,300)
• LinkedIn: 31% (~5,900)
• Snapchat: 27% (~5,100)
• X (Twitter): 22% (~4,200)
• Reddit: 22% (~4,200)
• WhatsApp: 21% (~4,000)

Age‑group usage patterns (how platform use concentrates by age; percentages are U.S. adult benchmarks that map to local behavior)

• 18–29: YouTube ~93%; Instagram ~78%; Snapchat ~65%; TikTok ~62%; Facebook ~33%
• 30–49: YouTube ~92%; Facebook ~75%; Instagram ~49%; TikTok ~39%; Snapchat ~25%
• 50–64: Facebook ~73%; YouTube ~83%; Instagram ~29%; TikTok ~15%
• 65+: Facebook ~50%; YouTube ~60%; Instagram ~15%; TikTok ~8% Implication for Scott County: a relatively older age mix compared with big metros keeps Facebook and YouTube dominant; youth and young families drive TikTok/Snapchat pockets.

Gender breakdown (directional tendencies consistent with rural counties)

• Women over‑index on Facebook and Instagram, and especially Pinterest (women ~50% vs men ~19% on Pinterest nationally).
• Men over‑index on YouTube, Reddit, and X (men use YouTube and Reddit at notably higher rates than women nationally).
• Net effect locally: Facebook audiences skew slightly female; Reddit/X skews male; YouTube reaches both but leans male on heavy use.

Behavioral trends in Scott County–type communities

• Community hubs: Facebook Groups and Pages (schools, youth sports, churches, local government, festivals) are the primary discovery and discussion venues; “shares” drive most organic reach for local news and events.
• Local commerce: Facebook Marketplace is a top channel for peer‑to‑peer buying/selling; service businesses rely on Page reviews and local group recommendations.
• Video first: Short‑form video (Reels/Shorts) boosts reach across demographics; YouTube remains the go‑to for how‑to, product research, and local sports/highlights.
• Messaging layer: Facebook Messenger is ubiquitous among adults; Snapchat is the default for teens/young adults; WhatsApp use exists but is smaller and more community‑specific.
• Cross‑posting behavior: Instagram posts and Reels are frequently auto‑shared to Facebook, increasing Facebook impressions even when content originates on Instagram.
• Timing and cadence: Engagement clusters around local moments—school announcements, weather/safety alerts, sports results, fairs/festivals, and new business openings—more than around national news.

Notes on interpretation

• Counts above are estimates derived by applying Pew’s 2024 U.S. adult platform usage percentages to Scott County’s approximate adult population; real users may overlap across platforms and totals are not additive.
• Rural areas typically show slightly higher Facebook reliance and slightly lower Instagram/TikTok penetration than national averages; the figures provided are conservative guides for planning.

Sources

• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2019–2023 5‑year estimates (Scott County, IN) for adult population baseline.
• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (U.S. adult platform adoption rates by platform, age, and gender).