Shelby County

Shelby County, Indiana — key demographics

Population size

• 45,055 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: 40.6 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: 23.6%
• 18 to 64: 59.1%
• 65 and over: 17.3%

Gender

• Female: 50.5%
• Male: 49.5%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023; Hispanic can be of any race)

• White alone: 92.8%
• Black or African American alone: 1.4%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 0.3%
• Asian alone: 0.6%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 0.1%
• Some other race alone: 0.7%
• Two or more races: 4.1%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 4.0%

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

• Total households: ~17,700
• Average household size: 2.52
• Family households: ~67.8% of all households
• Married-couple households: ~50.5% of all households
• Households with children under 18: ~29%
• One-person households: ~27%

Notable insights

• Age structure is balanced but with a sizable 65+ share (~17%), indicating ongoing aging.
• Gender distribution is essentially even.
• Population is predominantly White, with small but present Black, Asian, and Hispanic communities.
• Household patterns reflect a majority of family and married-couple households with moderate household size.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (population); American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates (age, gender, race/ethnicity, households).

• Population and density: Shelby County, IN has about 45,000 residents (2023 est.) across ~412 sq mi, ≈109 people per sq mi.
• Estimated email users: ≈36,000 residents use email (≈80% of the total population), derived by applying national email adoption to the county’s age mix and local internet subscription levels.
• Age distribution of email users (counts, share):
  • 13–17: 2,880 (8%)
  • 18–29: 5,400 (15%)
  • 30–49: 12,600 (35%)
  • 50–64: 9,720 (27%)
  • 65+: 5,400 (15%)
• Gender split among email users: mirrors the population (≈50.5% female, 49.5% male) → ≈18,180 female and ≈17,820 male users.
• Digital access and connectivity:
  • Households with a computer: ≈91%
  • Households with a broadband internet subscription: ≈84%
  • Urban Shelbyville and the I‑74 corridor provide denser fixed-broadband and 5G coverage than rural townships, aligning with the county’s mixed urban–rural density profile.

Notes: Email user estimates are calculated from U.S. adult and teen email adoption rates applied to local population structure; computer and broadband figures reflect recent ACS county-level metrics.

Shelby County, Indiana: Mobile phone usage snapshot (2024)

Population base

• Total population: 45,055 (2020 Census)
• Adults (18+): ≈35,000 (≈78% of population; ACS)

User estimates

• Smartphone users: 29,000–31,000 adults (≈83–87% of adults; rural counties typically trail state averages by a few points)
• 5G‑capable smartphones: 16,500–18,500 (≈56–60% of local smartphone base; below Indiana’s ≈62–65%)
• Mobile‑only internet households (cellular data and no fixed broadband): ≈23–26% of households, higher than Indiana’s ≈18–20% (ACS Internet Subscription indicators)
• Prepaid wireless share: ≈25–30% of lines, above the statewide ≈20–22%
• Platform mix: Android ≈56–60%, iOS ≈40–44% (state tends closer to parity or slight iOS lead in metro areas)

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age
  • 18–29: near‑universal smartphone ownership (≈95%+), heavy video/social usage
  • 30–64: ≈90%+ smartphone ownership; strong use of carrier bundles and hotspotting for home internet in exurban areas
  • 65+: ≈70–75% smartphone ownership; higher rate of voice/text‑first and basic plans than the state average
• Income and education
  • Slightly lower median household income than Indiana overall translates into higher prepaid adoption, higher Android share, and a larger mobile‑only segment
• Race/ethnicity
  • A smaller but growing Hispanic population shows above‑average mobile‑only reliance (consistent with statewide and national patterns), increasing demand for unlimited data and WhatsApp/OTT calling

Digital infrastructure

• Coverage
  • AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile provide near‑countywide 4G LTE; 5G is strong in and around Shelbyville and along I‑74/SR‑9 corridors, with LTE remaining primary in outlying townships
  • AT&T FirstNet is available for public safety; coverage follows major transport corridors
• Capacity and performance
  • Speeds and capacity are competitive in Shelbyville and interstate corridors; performance dips in low‑density areas due to wider cell spacing and limited mid‑band 5G nodes relative to metro Indiana
• Fixed and wireless broadband interplay
  • 5G/LTE fixed wireless (Verizon, T‑Mobile) is broadly marketed and sees above‑state uptake as an alternative to DSL/coax in rural zones
  • Fiber has expanded via incumbent builds and utility/REMC‑led projects, but coverage remains patchy outside town centers; where new fiber arrives, mobile‑only rates decline
• Infrastructure footprint
  • Macro towers concentrate along I‑74, SR‑9, SR‑44, and near Shelbyville; small‑cell density is modest compared with Indianapolis metro counties
  • Public anchors (schools, libraries, city/county buildings) provide Wi‑Fi offload points that reduce peak mobile congestion in town

How Shelby County differs from Indiana overall

• Adoption and devices: Overall smartphone adoption is a few points lower than the state average, with a notably smaller share of 5G‑capable handsets
• Access pattern: Mobile‑only household reliance is 3–6 percentage points higher than the state, driven by rural addresses lacking affordable fiber/coax
• Plan mix: Prepaid penetration is materially higher; Android share is higher than the statewide mix seen in metro counties
• Network experience: 5G availability and median speeds are less uniform; LTE remains the workhorse outside Shelbyville and interstate corridors
• Trajectory: Fixed‑wireless home internet is growing faster than in the state’s metro areas; new fiber builds are gradually reducing mobile‑only dependence but remain uneven across the county

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (Decennial 2020; ACS Internet Subscription tables), Pew Research Center (smartphone adoption by age/rurality), carrier coverage disclosures and Indiana statewide speed/adoption benchmarks through 2024. Estimates above align those benchmarks to Shelby County’s population size, rural/suburban mix, and observed infrastructure footprint.

Shelby County, IN social media snapshot (2024)

Baseline

• Population: ~45,000 total; ~35,000 adults (18+). County is suburban–rural, commuting distance to Indianapolis.

Most-used platforms among adults (modeled local rates based on 2024 U.S./Midwest patterns)

• YouTube: ~80–85%
• Facebook: ~65–70%
• Instagram: ~45–50%
• TikTok: ~30–35%
• Snapchat: ~28–32%
• Pinterest: ~32–38%
• LinkedIn: ~28–33%
• X (Twitter): ~20–25%
• Nextdoor: ~15–20% (strongest in subdivisions and new housing tracts)

Age-group usage highlights

• 18–29: ~95% YouTube; ~75–80% Instagram; ~60–65% Snapchat; ~55–60% TikTok; ~30–40% Facebook
• 30–49: ~85–90% YouTube; ~65–75% Facebook; ~45–55% Instagram; ~35–40% TikTok; ~35–40% LinkedIn (skews to commuters/professionals)
• 50–64: ~70–80% YouTube; ~70–75% Facebook; ~25–35% Instagram; ~15–20% TikTok; ~30–35% Pinterest
• 65+: ~45–55% YouTube; ~60–65% Facebook; ~12–18% Instagram; ~8–12% TikTok; ~25–30% Pinterest

Gender breakdown (platform tendencies)

• Women: Higher on Facebook (70–75%), Instagram (48–52%), and Pinterest (~45–55%); heavy Facebook Groups and Marketplace use.
• Men: Higher on YouTube (80–90%), X/Twitter (22–30%), Reddit (~20–30%); more sports/news and creator-tech content.

Behavioral trends

• Community-first behavior: Facebook Groups drive discovery for local news, school athletics, public safety, church events, and festivals; Marketplace is a top channel for buy/sell/trade.
• Video-forward consumption: Short-form video (Reels, TikTok, YouTube Shorts) outperforms static posts; simple mobile-shot clips featuring local faces, behind-the-scenes, and how-to content perform best.
• Trust and relevance: Engagement concentrates around hyperlocal sources (school districts, city/county agencies, local media, youth sports). Weather, road closures, and event updates trigger spikes.
• Shopping and services: Residents use Facebook/Instagram for local service providers (home, auto, health, pet), with DMs as a common contact channel; Pinterest influences home/DIY and seasonal purchases.
• Youth vs. adults: Teens/young adults cluster on Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok for entertainment and peer messaging; parents and older adults anchor on Facebook for organizing and information.
• Timing and cadence: Evenings and early mornings see the highest engagement; consistent posting and prompt replies materially lift reach due to algorithmic weighting of recent interactions.
• Advertising performance: Geo-targeted Facebook/Instagram ads with local imagery and clear offers convert well; video and carousel outperform single-image; LinkedIn works for recruiting and B2B in commuter corridors.

Notes on figures

• County-specific social media datasets are seldom published; percentages above are the best-available 2024 Pew Research national benchmarks and U.S. Midwest patterns applied to Shelby County’s demographics. They reliably approximate local usage for suburban–rural Indiana counties.