Sullivan County Local Demographic Profile

Sullivan County, Indiana — key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau: 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates)

Population size

  • Total population: 20,817 (2020 Census)
  • 2023 estimate: about 20.5 thousand (ACS)

Age

  • Median age: ~41 years
  • Under 18: ~20%
  • 18 to 64: ~62%
  • 65 and over: ~18%

Gender

  • Male: ~56%
  • Female: ~44% (Note: The county’s large correctional facility increases the male share.)

Race and ethnicity

  • White (non-Hispanic): ~86%
  • Black or African American: ~9%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~3%
  • Two or more races: ~2%
  • Asian: <1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: <1%

Households

  • Total households: ~7,900
  • Average household size: ~2.4
  • Family households: ~63% of households; average family size ~2.9
  • Married-couple households: ~47%
  • Nonfamily households: ~37%; living alone ~31% (about 12% age 65+ living alone)
  • Group quarters population (institutional/non-institutional): roughly 9–11% of total (primarily correctional)

Insights

  • Population has declined modestly since 2010.
  • Age structure is older than the U.S. average, with about 1 in 5 residents either under 18 or 65+.
  • Racial/ethnic diversity is limited overall, though the institutional population raises the Black share relative to neighboring rural counties.

Email Usage in Sullivan County

Sullivan County, IN snapshot

  • Population ~20,800; land area ~447 sq mi; density ~46 people/sq mi (rural).
  • Adult population (18+) ~16,200.

Email usage (estimated)

  • Adult email users: 15,000 (92% of adults).
  • By age (users, adoption within cohort):
    • 18–29: 2.4K users (98%)
    • 30–49: 4.8K (96%)
    • 50–64: 4.2K (92%)
    • 65+: 3.5K (85%)
  • Gender split among users: ~52% male, ~48% female (mirrors the county’s male-skewed population due to the local correctional facility).

Digital access and trends

  • Broadband subscription: ~80% of households; computer access ~90% of households; smartphone-only internet reliance ~10–15% of adults.
  • Mobile (4G/5G) covers most populated areas; fixed broadband is strongest in/near Sullivan and Carlisle, with thinner fiber presence in outlying townships.
  • Low population density increases last‑mile costs; pockets with slower fixed speeds remain outside town centers.

Insights

  • Email is near-universal among working-age adults; the main gap is among 65+ and smartphone-only users.
  • Effective outreach should be mobile-optimized and tolerant of lower bandwidth, with added support for older residents in rural zones.

Mobile Phone Usage in Sullivan County

Summary of mobile phone usage in Sullivan County, Indiana (2024)

Overview

  • Population: approximately 20,000–21,000 residents; predominantly rural with small towns along the US-41 corridor (Sullivan, Farmersburg, Carlisle).
  • Age structure skews older than the Indiana average; household incomes and educational attainment are modestly below the state average.

User estimates

  • Unique mobile users: 16,000–17,500 individuals (roughly 78–84% of total residents), reflecting high adult adoption plus substantial teen usage.
  • Adult smartphone adoption: 84–89% of adults in the county (Indiana: roughly 88–92%).
  • Wireless subscriptions: 23,000–26,000 active lines (about 110–125 lines per 100 residents), consistent with multi‑device households and work phones.

Demographic breakdown of mobile use

  • Seniors (65+): 60–70% smartphone adoption locally, below the state’s 75–80%; larger share of basic/voice‑centric devices than the state average.
  • Teens (12–17): 70–80% have a smartphone, slightly below state due to income/device‑cost sensitivity.
  • Income effects: A higher share of households below 200% of the federal poverty level than the state average drives:
    • Higher prepaid plan usage: 28–35% of lines (Indiana: ~20–25%).
    • Greater Android share: Android 60–65%, iOS 35–40% (iOS share lower than state by ~8–12 percentage points).
  • Mobile-only internet households: 15–18% rely on smartphones/hotspots as their primary home internet (Indiana: ~9–11%), reflecting limited fixed broadband options in rural areas.

Digital infrastructure

  • Coverage pattern:
    • Strongest along US‑41 and town centers; patchier service in low‑density western and southeastern parts of the county and near river bottoms.
    • All three national carriers provide 5G low‑band coverage to most of the population.
    • Mid‑band 5G (capacity/speed layer) is concentrated along the US‑41 corridor and town nodes; coverage gaps remain outside these corridors. Millimeter‑wave is essentially absent.
  • Performance:
    • Typical 4G/5G download speeds are lower and more variable than the statewide median, with noticeable slowdowns at peak times and indoors in older buildings.
    • Uplink performance and signal reliability degrade faster away from main corridors compared with state urban/suburban areas.
  • Fixed broadband interplay:
    • Cable and some fiber are available in town cores; outside those areas, residents rely more on DSL, fixed wireless, or 5G home internet.
    • Prior to the ACP wind‑down in 2024, participation rates in subsidized connectivity programs were above the state average, underscoring affordability constraints.

How Sullivan County differs from the Indiana state-level picture

  • Slightly lower adult smartphone penetration and notably lower adoption among seniors.
  • Higher reliance on prepaid plans and budget Android devices, reflecting income and rural purchasing patterns.
  • A significantly larger share of mobile‑only households using cellular data for primary home internet.
  • Sparser mid‑band 5G coverage and lower typical speeds outside the US‑41 corridor; more pronounced coverage variability by terrain.
  • Usage patterns tilt more toward voice/SMS and conservative data use in fringe areas, with heavier hotspot use where fixed broadband is limited.

Key insights

  • Network investments that extend mid‑band 5G beyond US‑41 (e.g., along SR‑54 and SR‑48 and into fringe census blocks) would close the most consequential performance gaps relative to the state.
  • Device affordability and senior‑focused digital literacy initiatives would yield outsized gains in smartphone adoption compared with statewide returns.
  • For service providers and public agencies, SMS‑first outreach, generous coverage in-building solutions, and support for hotspot/mobile‑home‑internet plans align better with local conditions than state‑average strategies.

Social Media Trends in Sullivan County

Sullivan County, Indiana — Social Media Snapshot (2025)

Method note: Figures are modeled local estimates using the county’s demographic profile (U.S. Census/ACS) and the latest U.S. usage patterns from Pew Research Center (2023–2024), adjusted for rural/age mix. Percentages refer to residents unless specified.

Topline user stats

  • Estimated social media users (age 13+): ~14,500 residents (≈78–80% penetration of 13+; ≈70% of total population)
  • Adults (18+) using at least one social platform: ≈80–82%
  • Typical multi-platform behavior: median 3 platforms per user

Age-group usage (share using at least one social platform)

  • 13–17: ~95%
  • 18–29: ~92%
  • 30–49: ~85%
  • 50–64: ~72%
  • 65+: ~48%

Gender breakdown

  • Overall users: ~52% female, ~48% male
  • Platform skews among local users:
    • Pinterest: ~70% female
    • Instagram/Snapchat: ~55–60% female
    • Facebook: roughly balanced (~51% female)
    • Reddit/X (Twitter)/LinkedIn: skew male (≈55–70% male depending on platform)

Most-used platforms (adults; estimated share of adult residents)

  • YouTube: ~80%
  • Facebook: ~72%
  • Instagram: ~40%
  • TikTok: ~34%
  • Snapchat: ~27%
  • Pinterest: ~28%
  • LinkedIn: ~20%
  • X (Twitter): ~17%
  • Reddit: ~14%
  • WhatsApp: ~12%

Behavioral trends

  • Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of Groups and Marketplace for local news, school/sports, church and civic updates, buying/selling, and event coordination.
  • Video-first consumption: YouTube for tutorials, trades, agriculture/outdoors; short-form video via Facebook Reels and TikTok is rising, with cross-posting common.
  • Youth split: Teens and early 20s favor Snapchat for messaging and TikTok for entertainment/discovery; Instagram is secondary for sharing/highlights.
  • Local commerce: Small businesses lean on Facebook and Instagram for reach; TikTok is used experimentally for awareness; LinkedIn remains niche and concentrated in education/health/public sector roles.
  • News and public safety: County offices, schools, and the sheriff’s office see strong engagement on Facebook during weather, road, and emergency updates.
  • Access patterns: Mobile-first usage dominates; engagement peaks evenings (roughly 7–10 p.m.) and Sunday nights, with lighter midday interaction on weekdays.
  • Participation style: Majority are viewers/lurkers; a smaller minority post regularly. Community issue posts (infrastructure, schools, events) drive comment spikes.

These figures provide a realistic, localized view of social media usage in Sullivan County based on current national adoption patterns weighted to the county’s older/rural demographic mix.