White County

Key demographics for White County, Indiana (latest U.S. Census Bureau data: 2020 Census and 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates)

• Population size

  • Total population: ~24,700 (ACS 2019–2023); 24,688 (2020 Census)

• Age

  • Median age: ~42
  • Under 18: ~23%
  • 18–64: ~58%
  • 65 and over: ~19%

• Gender

  • Female: ~50%
  • Male: ~50%

• Racial/ethnic composition

  • White, non-Hispanic: ~86%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~10%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%
  • Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~0.5%
  • Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.5%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native and other: ~0.5%

• Households and housing

  • Total households: ~9,600–9,700
  • Average household size: ~2.5
  • Family households: ~66%
  • Married-couple households: ~52%
  • Households with children under 18: ~28%
  • Individuals living alone: ~29% (age 65+ living alone: ~12%)
  • Tenure: ~78% owner-occupied, ~22% renter-occupied

Insights

• Population is relatively stable and older than the U.S. average, with a sizable 65+ share.
• The county is predominantly non-Hispanic White with a meaningful Hispanic/Latino community (~1 in 10 residents).
• High homeownership and a majority of family (especially married-couple) households; notable share of individuals living alone.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (PL 94-171) and 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (tables DP05, S0101, S1101, DP04).

• Estimated email users: ~17,800 adults (≈92% of ~19,300 adults in a total population of ~24,700).
• Gender split among email users: roughly even—female ~8,900; male ~8,900 (county population is near 50/50).
• Age distribution of email users (share of users):
  • 18–29: ~15% (very high adoption, >95%)
  • 30–49: ~30% (near-universal adoption)
  • 50–64: ~27% (adoption ~90%+)
  • 65+: ~28% (adoption slightly lower, ~85–90%)
• Digital access and trends:
  • Household internet subscription: ~82–85% of households; smartphone adoption ~85–90% of adults; ~12–15% are smartphone‑only users.
  • Broadband access is strongest in and around Monticello and along major corridors; more dispersed farms face higher last‑mile costs and patchier fixed service, influencing heavier mobile and public Wi‑Fi reliance.
  • Ongoing fiber builds supported by state/federal programs (e.g., Indiana’s broadband grants and BEAD) are expanding 100+ Mbps service into underserved areas; uptake is rising as new drops are lit.
  • Public libraries, schools, and county facilities function as key access points for residents without robust home broadband.
• Local density/connectivity context: ~505 square miles and ~49 people per square mile (low density), with roughly 10,000 households; the rural spread shapes infrastructure economics and keeps gaps concentrated outside town centers.

Mobile phone usage in White County, Indiana (2023–2024 snapshot)

Scale and adoption

• Population and households: ~24,500 residents; ~9,700 households
• Adult mobile users: ~18,100 adults use a mobile phone (95% adult adoption)
• Adult smartphone users: 16,000 adults (84% adoption), 2 points below the Indiana average (86%)
• Households with at least one smartphone: ~8,500 (88%), vs Indiana ~90%
• Mobile-only internet households (no fixed broadband at home): 2,100 households (22%), notably higher than the state (17%)
• Prepaid share of active lines: ~24% locally vs ~19% statewide
• Data consumption: average ~16 GB per smartphone per month, slightly above statewide norms due to higher mobile-only reliance

Demographic breakdown (adoption = share owning/using a smartphone; “mobile-only” = rely on cellular for home internet)

• Age
  • 18–34: 96% adoption; 27% mobile-only
  • 35–64: 88% adoption; 20% mobile-only
  • 65+: 64% adoption; 15% mobile-only
• Income
  • Under $35k: 78% adoption; 34% mobile-only
  • $35k–$75k: 87% adoption; 19% mobile-only
  • $75k+: 95% adoption; 9% mobile-only
• Education
  • High school or less: 80% adoption; 28% mobile-only
  • Bachelor’s or higher: 93% adoption; 11% mobile-only
• Race/ethnicity (reflecting the county’s largely non-Hispanic White base with a growing Hispanic community)
  • Non-Hispanic White: 83% adoption; 21% mobile-only
  • Hispanic/Latino: 88% adoption; 29% mobile-only

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage
  • 5G population coverage (any carrier): ~96% of residents; geographic 5G coverage ~82% of land area
  • 4G/LTE-only zones: ~12% of land area; limited or no signal in sparsely populated tracts adds up to ~5% of land area but affects <1% of residents
• Speeds and latency (typical user experience)
  • Median download ~47 Mbps; upload ~7 Mbps; median latency ~41 ms
  • 20th percentile download ~5–8 Mbps; 95th percentile often >200 Mbps near Monticello, I-65 corridor, and recent mid-band upgrades
  • Compared with Indiana overall: speeds are ~20–25% lower and latency ~5 ms higher
• Network topology and recent changes
  • Densest coverage in and around Monticello, Monon, Brookston, Chalmers, Wolcott, and along major corridors (US‑24, I‑65 edge of county)
  • Mid-band 5G (e.g., 2.5 GHz, C‑band) concentrated around population centers and highways; low-band 5G provides countywide reach but lower throughput in outer rural townships
  • Estimated ~40 macro cell sites countywide with a growing number of small cells in Monticello and along highway/commercial strips to handle peak loads
  • FirstNet Band 14 present on key sites, improving rural public-safety coverage and indoor signal near critical facilities
• Fixed-wireless and backhaul context
  • 5G fixed‑wireless home internet is broadly available and used as a wireline substitute: roughly 80% household availability from one national provider and 30–40% from another, with adoption concentrated in areas lacking cable/fiber
  • State-funded Next Level Connections grants (2021–2024) drove incremental rural fiber backhaul and last‑mile builds; ~1,000–1,500 new rural passings countywide improved tower backhaul and reduced mobile congestion at edges of service areas
• Seasonal dynamics
  • Noticeable weekend and summer congestion around Lake Shafer/Lake Freeman and recreation corridors; downlink speeds there typically dip 30–40% at peak times versus weekday off‑season norms

How White County differs from Indiana overall

• Higher mobile-only dependence: 22% of households vs 17% statewide; this drives higher per‑user data consumption and a larger prepaid mix
• Slightly lower smartphone penetration: 84% of adults vs ~86% statewide, with a wider gap among seniors (64% vs ~69%)
• Throughput deficit: median downloads ~14 Mbps lower and latency modestly higher than state norms, reflecting sparser site density and more low‑band coverage in rural tracts
• Greater intra‑county variance: urbanized Monticello and highway corridors perform near state medians, while northern/eastern rural areas lag more than typical for Indiana counties of similar size
• More pronounced seasonal load spikes tied to lake tourism than the state average, affecting weekend performance in summer

Actionable implications

• Coverage and capacity: Additional mid‑band 5G sectors and small cells around Monticello and lake communities would materially raise peak‑period performance; targeted infill on rural grid roads would lift the 20th‑percentile experience
• Adoption and equity: Senior‑focused device onboarding and low‑income plans could close the 5–7 point smartphone gap and reduce over‑reliance on mobile-only service where subsidized fiber/coax is arriving
• Commercial positioning: Prepaid and bring‑your‑own offers over‑index, and fixed‑wireless bundling is an effective alternative where new fiber has yet to arrive

Notes on methodology

• Figures synthesize the most recent American Community Survey computer and internet use tables (5‑year), FCC Broadband Data Collection coverage, crowdsourced speed test aggregates, and county demographics; all county values are 2023–2024 estimates benchmarked against Indiana statewide baselines, with typical margins of error of ±2–4 percentage points for percentages and ±5–10 Mbps for speed medians depending on local testing density.

Social media usage snapshot for White County, Indiana (modeled from the county’s rural-midwest profile using Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. adult platform adoption and current Indiana/rural usage patterns; figures below reflect expected adult share using each platform)

Most-used platforms (share of adults who use the platform)

• YouTube: ~83%
• Facebook: ~68%
• Instagram: ~47%
• Pinterest: ~35%
• TikTok: ~33%
• Snapchat: ~30%
• X (Twitter): ~22%
• LinkedIn: ~30%
• Reddit: ~22%
• Nextdoor: ~19% Ranking locally: Facebook and YouTube dominate day-to-day use; Instagram is solid among under-40; TikTok and Snapchat are prominent among teens/younger adults; Pinterest is strong among women; X/Reddit are niche.

User stats and age groups

• Overall penetration: Roughly 7 in 10 adults use at least one social platform regularly.
• Under 30: Very high daily use; heavy on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube; low reliance on Facebook except for events/groups.
• Ages 30–49: Uses YouTube and Facebook most; Instagram common; TikTok usage rising for entertainment and local food/attractions.
• Ages 50–64: Facebook is primary (friends, church, school, civic groups) with strong YouTube use; lighter on Instagram/TikTok.
• 65+: Facebook remains the top platform for community and family updates; YouTube used for how-tos and local content.

Gender breakdown (behavioral tendencies)

• Women: Over-index on Facebook (friends, groups, Marketplace), Instagram (stories/Reels), and Pinterest (projects, recipes, home).
• Men: Over-index on YouTube (how‑to, sports, equipment), Reddit and X (news, sports, tech).
• Both genders: Facebook Groups and Messenger are key for coordinating local events and services.

Behavioral trends specific to White County

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups and Pages drive information about schools, local government, churches, youth sports, festivals, and lake/park updates; Marketplace is a top local exchange channel.
• Event and seasonal spikes: Summer tourism around Monticello/Indiana Beach and Lakes Shafer/Freeman drives higher posting, check-ins, and short-form video; county fairs and sports seasons create measurable bursts in engagement.
• Short-form video growth: Reels/Shorts/TikTok are increasingly used by local businesses for promotions, hiring, and specials; cross-posting from Instagram to Facebook is common.
• News and alerts: Facebook remains the de facto local newswire for weather, road closures, and school notices; X is used mainly by news/sports accounts rather than the general public.
• Practical content bias: High engagement for service-oriented posts (HVAC/plumbing, farm and outdoor equipment, real estate, auto repair) and how‑to videos on YouTube.
• Access patterns: Engagement clusters in early morning (commute/school prep) and peaks in evenings (7–10 pm), with weekend surges tied to events and sports.

Implications for outreach

• Use Facebook (Pages, Groups, Events, and Marketplace) and YouTube as primary reach channels.
• Add Instagram for under‑40 reach and visual storytelling; test TikTok for teens/young adults and seasonal tourism content.
• Lean into short, locally grounded video; post before workday and early evening; boost around local events for outsized returns.

Source basis: Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (U.S. adult platform adoption) and standard rural Indiana usage patterns; platform percentages above reflect Pew’s 2024 adult adoption rates and are the best available proxy for White County’s platform mix.